The Search Bar

(Background music) (On being a mastermind) Article Introduction by a Pizza Parlor Owner (Creative Exercise) You ever wonder who the real mastermind is, the one who truly cooks up the master plan to serve? Not your average chef, mind you, but the kind with brains bigger than a jumbo pepperoni pizza. We're talkin' here about masterminds, the guys who pull the strings while they try to maintain a professional distance . These are the ones who make empires rise and fall faster than a perfectly tossed pie on your rooftop. Now, there's been a lot of debate lately about who wears that title best: Heisenberg, the infamous blue meth cook, or Tomasio Rubinshtein, this philosophical pizzaiolo slinging articles in the virtual landscape. See, Heisenberg might seem like the clear winner at first. He built a drug empire from scratch, acting all ruthless and calculating. But is that all there is to being a mastermind? What about someone who uses their brainpower to build something good, something that nourishes the soul instead of rotting it from the inside out? Here at the Nietzsche Nibble , we believe brains and heart go hand-in-hand when crafting a piece. You got to have have the knowledge to craft the perfect pie, but you also gotta love what you do. That's why we're pitting these two masterminds head-to-head. Let's think whether Heisenberg's ruthless tactics stack up against Rubinshtein's diverse philosophical approaches. Grab a slice, settle in, and get ready for a special piece, free of charge! Let's see who's the better brain, see who truly cooks up a masterpiece – Heisenberg with his blue meth or Rubinshtein with his thought-provoking articles... Stupid intelligent would be someone who is super intelligent yet is misusing it. -- Mr. Nathan Lasher Walter White , nicknamed "Heisenberg," is an iconic character from the Breaking Bad TV series. A criminal business owner who formerly was a chemistry teacher and a former founder of a pill-producing company. After he realized he had severe cancer, something within him began to change. The unsatisfied chemistry teacher, undermined by everyone, who worked two jobs, slowly became someone else: The very person he wanted to be. His ideal self . That ideal self was Heisenberg. Compared to other people, the pre-Heisenberg Walter White was not as relevant, and this hurt his self-estimation greatly. He did not like being a high school teacher, as well as working at some car wash store. No. He wanted to be more. He wanted to be more powerful, as he was power-hungry, but never seized the potential within him to gain power. Power in the form of money, renown, and recognition in the criminal underworld of the South West U.S.. It was very hard to trust him because he was a pathological liar who manipulated everyone around him. Even his own family failed to trust him, because he was never trustworthy. And when you constantly lie to everyone around you, you greatly decrease their psychological safety with you , as well as their loyalty to you. How can someone be credible when they lie, even to their own employees and business partners? His partner-in-crime, Jesse Pinkman , was nothing more than a pawn to him. And as such he had no problem treating him like garbage, as long as it did not harm his Heisenberg Empire. When you constantly lie, and your lies are detected and recognized, your selfish, morally depraved nature is exposed as well. Thus, Mr. White made sure to distinguish himself from his criminal persona. It is quite difficult to survive as a criminal, so you may need to constantly deceive others to not blow your cover. However, White has proven to be a poor liar. As such, his eventual failure to separate his two personas, due to a very tiny mishap, made him a victim of the DEA. And, his brother-in-law, Hank, was the one who figured out the man behind his acting role. Ironically, the merciless Heisenberg still had compassion for his family. He didn't want Hank dead. He still believed in his family, somehow, despite his family not wanting him or his dirty money. Hank died regardless by White's soon-to-be successors, whom he left his empire after he decided to retire. Heisenberg wasn't a genius . He was dumber than we may think. That tiny mishap that exposed White as Heisenberg essentially ruined everything in his plans. If he wasn't careless, in the long run, Hank wouldn't be killed, his successors wouldn't betray him, and he wouldn't have to kill them by his last night of being alive. Have you spotted this fatal flaw? The fatal flaw of having as W. W., over some book. https://screenrant.com/breaking-bad-walt-family-secret-discover-episodes-skyler-hank/ Yes, White had his initials revealed for Hank's eyes unintentionally. Hank took it and simply made the connection, based on the evidence he gathered thus far. It was such a silly mistake. A preventable mistake. By the way, Heisenberg lied about something very severe: He said that he was doing all of this for his family. By the end of the episode, he revealed to his wife, Skyler, that he did it all for himself. That he enjoyed the power. That it was fun. His son refused to receive all the riches his provider-father has collected for him because the son was far more moral than him. Okay? In fact his son hated him so much, that his final words to him were: "Just die." And that, dear readers, is the fatal flaw of being morally depraved. Because morality exists on a spectrum. Making moral choices in life will get you respect and admiration. Disregard morality completely in favor of egoistical hedonism , and you will become like Heisenberg: A depraved criminal who just wanted to have a power trip before he died. Yes, Carpe Diem . "Seize the moment." Heisenberg did just that. He was about to die, so he threw away his morality, because morality is a restraint. Morality limits your actions. White wanted to experience relevance and authority at the cost of everything else that is humane. It got him dead, alone, and hated by everyone who knew him. He was in no way a good person, not even to his own wife and kids. He just wanted to compensate for being undermined so much by the world. That is not how you gain relevance effectively. You gain relevance effectively by building trust, by being at least somewhat ethical, and by leaving a legacy for others. Otherwise, you will just live for yourself and your own fantasies, and you might do so at the expense of others. I am a moral disciplinarian of myself. I know who I am and what I am capable of doing. Deep inside, I know. Know more than any of you. It is one of the prices of being highly intelligent and a public figure. I have no desire to misuse what I am trying to be; What I am becoming. I am not fond of being compared to Heisenberg. His empire was just a megalomaniac fantasy, incarnated in the reality outside of White's head. My empire is far nobler than that. His empire was built on the addictive hedonism of his ingenious meth drug, which was a very pure product and thus a superior one. A product that was made for long-term addiction. My article empire is built on providing value and worth. Value and worth that are more than just money, unlike the megalomaniac tyrant who just wanted to have some fun before his inevitable demise. And he didn't care for successors, either. He murdered them because they stole some of his money. And he didn't care what his own son, Flynn, would do with his money. Because he didn't care for him, nor for his future. I am not like that Heisenberg, I am Rubinshtein, my own, altruistic Heisenberg. I am the one who helps. Yet, I like to be left alone... I, unlike him, care for other human beings and choose to be moral. Yet, like him, I find little reason to communicate with most people. It was hard for him to be understood as it is for me. He embraced it his way, I embraced it in my own way. In this battle of personalities, mine is the morally superior one. Superior by the fact that I refuse to be purely egoistic and careless about human suffering . And I'm trying not to make foolish mistakes. At least I'm trying, honestly. I think logic compels some of you to withdraw from your comparison of our two beings. Correct? And I learn from the mistakes of others, as I deserve. As I deserve for myself, and for you. I am not a drug baron, I am an article baron. I supply you with insight, not emotion-shifting chemicals . I want to contribute, and not feed on your weaknesses. Why would people profit and enjoy on feeding on others' weaknesses? I... I don't understand.

(Philosocom's Directory on Power) (Background music) Few of us can significantly change the world, with or without support. As creators, change usually comes when large portions of people are exposed to the content we provide, and when that content affects them in one way or another. The exception is, of course, when we are given a position of larger authority, like in the field of politics, which then our sphere of influence has a greater potential to grow to a wider audience. Much of our ability to change the world, therefore, is indirect. And influence is, pretty much, power that is indirect (similar, but not identical, to the Imperial British indirect rule ). This power allows you to grow your presence, as such, indirectly. It is one that is done through the hearts and minds of people. It's not done through official authority, which gives us the legitimacy to issue orders to subordinates. When influenced, the inspiring impression you leave on other people, affects their ability to choose when they have and are entitled to the freedom of choice. Regardless, if you want to optimize your sphere of Change and Influence to the point where the content you provide will have the capability to affect audiences all over the world, social media is probably the most common, elementary way to begin . Provide the world with whatever you have to offer and build up your follower base, and your sphere of influence may grow larger than otherwise . In this current era, an individual's internet presence is probably the most basic form of worldwide presence they can have, given how accessible it is to just about everyone with an internet connection. This shows how important it is to preserve and grow it, if one is to express and promote whatever agenda they hold. Along with other things, of course, such as building businesses and working on contributions to humanity. The point of gaining influence is but a means to an end, rather than something that is the end itself. All the work you're doing in that regard can be used to make this world a better place to live in, by exchanging useful and practical ideas, like giving people more job opportunities, like building charity funds and so on. Your presence in this world can bring much good to this world as it can be bad. Focus on the good by contributing to people, and you will understand how growing your sphere of influence was useful for that intention in mind. However, if you want to avoid infamy on the internet, even if such infamy will grow your recognition , you should avoid scandals as much as possible. Treat your critics fairly and with tolerance, and avoid being the world's next laughing stock. Even if by doing so you'll become more recognized, the world is less likely to take you seriously, which is an essential component of putting your message across. Please distinguish between critics and haters. They are not the same, even if there are some exceptions. A critic may not even hate you. They can even sympathize with your efforts. A critic, thus, can criticize regardless of their emotions towards you. That's while a hater's interest is to spread their hatred through toxic behavior. Don't be insulted by criticism. Only one of these two types is worthy of your time. Remember that. There have, are, and will be many well-known people across the media who have nothing to offer the world other than being laughed at , even if that isn't their intention. Hence why I suggest you dedicate time and effort into researching them and their content, and learn from their mistakes, so you won't become a laughingstock like they are, as your sphere of influence will grow and more and more people will be affected by whatever agenda you wish to promote. You cannot influence seriously if you are not taken seriously enough. Lol-cows , like Chris Chan , are such examples of highly known people online whose ability to be taken seriously, amounts to zero. And to matter— of course — begins with thinking about what you wish to advocate for in the first place. Regardless of whatever stage you are in life, you possess the potential to advocate for whatever may lead to a brighter future; As long as you're influential enough, as long as your content is high quality, like a philosophy article , and as long as most of your audience will take you seriously. Combine and work on these three conditions, and you might have the indirect potential to change the world's course of events, one follower at a time. Even if that change will be minor in comparison to changes made by the world's political leaders. Even if minor, it is probable that your content will help lead to a better future, however that term may be defined reasonably. My own vision is to give people a reason to live using philosophy, like it gave to me. A final tip for your journey — try to avoid conflict as much as possible with other influential bodies. Are you familiar with the "How dare you" speech Greta Thunberg made in the U.N.? In my opinion she could've put her message across without acting like a drama actor in a theater. Act in a mature and respectful manner, and your content's reception will become more tolerated and respected as well, which in turn will increase the effectiveness of your delivery. Also, avoid doing criminal activities like t he infamous Onision or your work will forever be tainted by the world. When you become a public figure, it is far more difficult to lay low . That's the sacrifice of wanting to matter more. Unfortunately, for my tips to be actualized, we must recognize the different potentials of other people for our cause, and do not overestimate them whether they are for us or against us. That would mean that some people may be worthier of our time, unlike others who may deserve it more. Try to think like them in order to better understand their motivations when interacting with you. Making social errors on the world stage, like Ms. Thunberg in the U.N, is not the same as committing them in front of a random, "typical" individual. We can deduce from this that the relevance of different people is always relative. We may be equals in some ways, but not in many other ways . Be your reasons for influence, whatever they may be -- you seek power, nevertheless. I seek it only as a means to an end. And not for my own personal gain. And a person's worth can logically and practically be measured by their power. For their power can have an effect on us, and vice versa. Power, whether direct or indirect by influence, will always be an asset one can rely on for different purposes. Don't let your influence corrupt you , and best of luck.

(Villainy/Anti-Villainy Directory) (Philosocom's Subcategory on Revenge) 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.

(On power: https://www.philosocom.com/post/on-the-pursuit-of-power https://www.philosocom.com/post/how-to-become-powerful-as-a-philosopher-the-2-powerbases https://www.philosocom.com/post/change-and-influence-growing-your-presence https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-unparalleled-influence-of-philosophers-written-by-nr-m-j-k-molai https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-zanetti-clan-philosophy-how-to-live-and-die-by-power The Philosophy of Coercion -- How It Corrupts Society Through Normalization -- Its Ironic Origin The Sad Dictator -- How Power Complies Authority to Cooperate (Storytime) "Starved" Character Analysis and the Ethics That Follow -- A Philosophy of Starvation In Humanity Every Country (A Poem-Story) -- Why Much Success Could Not Be Enough The Philosophy of The Mastermind -- How to Become One Into the Mind of the Dark Ascetic Master, Heihachi Mishima of Tekken (And Directory) https://www.philosocom.com/post/controlled-chaos (Background music) When I was at my very weakest I'd hoped for someone to come save me. When I tragically realized no such savior would ever appear, I decided to stand up, become strength incarnate and save myself, and thus became an Odd power via my very refusal to ever give up on who I am -- Mr. John Duran After going on once again to the depths of the internet, I have encountered a thought-triggering quote from a series of video games I watched... Power is everything. It was said by a character called Jin Kazama from Tekken . When people think of power, I wager they usually think of monetary wealth , political power, respect and authority. However, these are not the only ways which one can get power, for there are many ways in which power could be achieved. What is power ? Power is whatever resource or resources required for success to be achieved. You don't have to be a wealthy politician or an " alpha male/female " in order to be powerful. Ultimately, it all depends on the goal you have in hand, and what requires getting it. Power can be expressed in different ways, direct or otherwise. Regardless, everything is power, and everything can be used to attain more power. In a sense, power is indeed everything because everything is made of energy , and energy is, ultimately, power. However, it's not only of scientific nature, such as physical prowess, wind or electricity. It is also intelligence , authority, and people. What made humanity reach its technological peak was, in the end, the collaboration of many people, and their competition on what they see as their success. In theory, everything and everyone can be used as power , if it serves the progress towards success. That is because you need power to be accomplished, even if by personality at the very least. This, however, leads to the temptation of disposability ; of getting rid of those who have helped you along the way, once they are no longer useful. This is the cruel side of this philosophy, found within the Jin Kazama's quote. Power is everything, but not eternal, because nothing is, in fact, eternal. Like batteries, they may run out, and then, if there is no way to recharge them, the sad fact is that some people would choose to dispose of it, since they have now become but a waste of space, and for some, a waste of time. I have my own way of power. A power that can always be applied and thus is recyclable. I simply call it, kindness . When you're kind to other people, they will appreciate you more and will be willing to help you. Being kind pays off , and this kind of power is free. All it requires is to give up the short-sighted temptation to get rid of people you do not need at the present time. Betray their trust and they can be vengeful like I was , which can be unwise for you. It's what my clan told me is missing in this world... honesty, purity. And indeed, what I represent and subscribe to, is the idea of the raw power of purity. Those who are more evil or malicious in their hearts , will not follow this path, but those who have true good in them, will. This is how I built my follower-base -- by being pure of heart and showing goodwill when goodwill is due. I think that my goodwill is more important than my very eccentric reality. Philosophy is a way of life, and I live in a way that would make my late master proud. If I am to be tough and uncaring , it's because I still try to maintain the difference between the professional and personal worlds within me. As such, I will be kinder and more considerate to people I am in closer contact with. My morality is unrelenting, intricate and largely uncompromising. I am the most ruthless towards myself. I purposefully make people keep their respectful distance from me, and finally, I enjoy using philosophy as a way of life. I use philosophy like this in order to make my dead master proud of me, as if she was still alive. Years later, I refuse forsaking her after the world, in its weakness, gave up on her because she was too difficult for them. Ever since the 2000's , forever shocked as a one man army, I made much of the planet pay in secrecy and weird anonymity, hiding in plain sight from a world I find both my ally and my enemy. Some people get their power through immense wealth. Others, through manipulation that they use to exploit and to oppress . However, I strive to get my own power in this world, by being good and doing good. With it, I will leave an impact on it, in a form of a legacy, and hopefully, it will contribute to the world, and bring better to it, even after my death. I am Tomasio Rubinshtein, the pure-hearted hero. With my words I will show those who misunderstood me, that they were wrong in their estimation of me, and that I am full of good, and ultimately – am a relevant person. Nothing more in this life brings me such joy as contributing to the goodness of the world in the way I am good at it: By writing articles such as this and creating partnerships, alliances, followings, and friendships with any good person who comes my way . And those who will condemn or reject me may one day understand they were wrong about their incorrect estimation of the man and professional I can be. Who said power must be all about manipulation and backstabbing? These are but minor features in the very thing that surrounds the entire world -- energy, both physical and abstract. I hunger for power not for the sake of power but because it is the inevitable method for the success that I seek. My ultimate success is world rectification! To succeed, I must not only rectify the world, but myself as well. I will be needing a lot... a lot of endurance power. I refuse giving up! I once thought that I should not seek it, but that was before I was exposed to the power of online writing ; when I thought I could live in even more extreme isolation than I'm currently in. It was before when I realized that power is, in a way, everything. It is the inevitable resource -- whatever resource it specifically is -- to achieve your goals. And I know that, as long as I act and bring good to this world, no one has any reason to stand in my way. Me, her apprentice.

(Background music) (Philosocom's Directory On Emotions) Altruism In Isolation "Living alone isn't so bad." -- Razro , Suikoden IV It appears that my capacity of human emotion has been dwindling, bit by bit. It's not even something I'm sad about. I'm just beginning to naturally see this existence in a lesser regard. Not because I want to, but because it happens so intuitively, the more I philosophize . The things which we hold in high regard, what is their point, beyond the function and purpose which they serve? A rare rainbow means very little to me, for a rainbow serves little functionality and purpose, beyond being an eye-candy to millions. I've been in a largely physical isolation for most of my life, training my tenacity and logic relentlessly by writing and renovating philosophy articles. I let my heart be broken online and offline so I would grow accustomed to pain and suffering. Having very few people being in my physical company, I only began seeing the world with even more repulse. Repulse, not because I hate the world, but because I don't really understand its significance in the overall scheme of things, beyond the functionality and purpose it serves to me. By the same token, I began seeing my worth less, beyond the same criteria which I began ruthlessly judging this world by. And I don't need a heart to contribute to others. I don't need a heart to do the right thing, when I understand the value of things beyond whatever they make me think or feel. When you reach a certain amount of independence from other people, you then begin to question their necessity in your life beyond the mentioned criteria of usefulness and worth. I was criticized by a minor antagonist about me being so hooked up on machinery to live -- the gaming console, the computer and so on, instead of actual company. But I don't need to go outside wherever I happen to live at the time, and experience life orthodoxically, when I can use reasoning and research to get the data I want. The data I can use to contribute to this world, and thus contribute to myself, by refusing being a klumnik. Perhaps, since my childhood, I'm simply a solitary animal , rather than a social one. Perhaps I keep this site afloat so I could justify my existence, in a life that is otherwise useless and dysfunctional to the social order I am forced to be in. And I don't need to care about you on the emotional level to contribute to you by your consent. I don't need to unmute my emotions to be a good person. I don't need to liberate myself from my loneliness to be meaningful to you through my unforgiving work for humanity. I don't need to live together with my emotions to get be a relentless altruist, and thus, to clear the gap between me and the ideal self. The self I need to be more productive in your name. Unfeeling and Uninhibited "When it comes to a battle of wills, I have no doubt that mine should prevail against yours!" -- Graham Cray , Suikoden IV I really like the delusion that we need friends in order to be happy. It is a very broad generalization, because once you get used to your own company, the necessity for friendship would decrease. It's also possible to delude ourselves using our feelings towards this value, by unintentionally committing the parasocial fallacy , but I digress. A delusion I like even more is the generalization that we all want to be happy . But I do not understand what do I gain by being happy. We might as well devise a machine with a button that which each press, we become happy. Hehehe. A life of pure joy can easily be a problem when we discard anything else that practically deserve our attention, like problems, and like other people's distress ( thus making that life "pure" ). If I was capable of true human independence, one where I would succumb to the egoism that lies in wanting to be happy, then I might as well be even more solitary than I already am. And had I been more solitary, I would be less willing to help those in need. I would avoid listening to people's problems. I would avoid helping people believe in themselves, and lastly, I would avoid helping suffering people, whose names I will never mention as examples in my articles. Therefore, wanting happiness is a waste of my efforts, when tuning in to the problems and the distress of those I can help, contributes far more to the overall good of this reality. And we don't need emotions, nor dependence on a certain state of emotion, in order to know all this and all the insights I deliver to you in this article. I am speaking to your rationale, not to your heart. And should you ask, in fair criticism, why should we even care about others, my answer would be this: It's our choice and we're entitled to our choices as people capable of free will . And if I want to surrender my will to altruism, I will. What makes our will free lies in our determination to lend our willpower for whatever value or effort we hope and dream for. Compare this to a freelancer who gets to choose who to work for. And I am unfeeling the same as I am unrelenting. As long as I have purpose, and as long as I know what do to do attain that purpose, I've no reason to let anything, or anyone, stand in my path. I don't need to be happy to do just that. I just need the amount of discipline required to persist. Any increase of human emotion... any increase that hinders purpose, deserves to be mercilessly burned to the ground, muted, silenced. The delusion that emotion deserves to be highly regarded, even emotion which makes you suffer, is quite amusing to me. When it stands in your path, when it causes grief to your efforts, why entertain its rebellious presence so much? Why desire emotion which paralyzes you? Why desire emotion which makes you unstable? isn't emotion, ultimately, nothing more than a biochemical drug, created within the body, triggered by external affairs? Could I be making the strawman's fallacy by asking these questions? And you cannot change my mind, when I already understand that altruism is morally good, and that there is no greater moral good than altruism. I've worked on my ego. It no longer has the emptiness it used to have. Nothing I will do will satisfy me, because I am not after satisfaction. I am after productivity, and I am after it, by choice. I never understood this need to be someone else's, or for someone else to be yours. I just live my days alone, contributing to the world, and I still remain alive, either way. All the emotional complications that follow -- what is their point, in the large scheme or things? To make you escape from the inevitable monotony of life? But I don't need to escape. I don't need to cower from the grief of being alive, when I can cope with it, and stare it down to death . Why, then, should I escape? Embracing Sacrifice While Battling the Shackles of Being a Human "A soldier shouldn't act on personal feelings." -- Hauser , Suikoden II I just belittle the importance of emotions, especially those who serve more as an obstacle than anything else. I have no use for obstacles, the same as I have no use for weakness. I belittle anyone and anything, myself included, when any of those become a liability, and thus are needed to be relentlessly improved. Nothing and no one is perfect, but it does not mean we should keep things, or even ourselves, the way we are. I don't mind sacrificing much of my life just to get a goal, when that sacrifice is necessary, for said goal. Peace, while deserves, can often be a liability, when we act, think and behave in its name alone. Like with happiness, some things, matter as well, in the name of success. And what is success? It's when you get what you set your eyes for. Perhaps if I cared less for the success of my altruistic pursuit, then my capacity for human emotion would be bigger. Anything that makes me excited, would've gotten far more attention. Far more attention, than it actually deserves. Why do emotions even exist, beyond the ensuring of function and purpose? Why should I continue to exist, if not for a function and purpose which exceeds myself? Why can't we just regard what serves us, and disregard that which not? Is this all a product of overstretched influences, which we allow due to our various weaknesses? And what is weakness? Anything that makes us more vulnerable than we should, for our plans. But I, I refuse to be weak. I cannot be a relentless altruist, should I choose weakness. I cannot be a relentless altruist if I whine. I cannot be one if I sink into depression. And I can't be one if I choose to want to have fun and happiness above all. So, I simply won't. I will burn to the ground, and lock away, any internal component which hurts my inner core. And I became a relentless altruist by being ruthless to myself. That is how you will benefit from me, the most. Be one yourselves, and others will benefit from you, more.

(Philosocom's directory on education) (Background music) Introduction I consider myself an educated person , but I do not consider myself an academic, even though I have some academic background. This is for two reasons: first, I find the drawbacks of the academia too severe , and second, most of my education has come in unconventional ways, mostly by being an auto-didact . I am happy to share the history of my education with you, and explain why it is relevant to the Philosocom Article Empire. My Education History I have 13 years of public education. I was delayed by one year because the school I was transferred to only had one classroom for autistic students, and it was the only option if I wanted to be in a class that would better teach me interpersonal skills. Thus, I changed being in an average classroom in favor of special education, at the cost of studying in the same grade twice. In that middle school, which later became both middle and high school, I received special education that, as the years went by, became more and more unique to me. In the first year, I needed to learn history once more, for a reason I don't remember, so I taught myself through the autodidactic path. That was the first time in my life as a student where I was required to learn things on my own within the framework of public education. No teacher, no class. Just me alone and a book as my only mentor. I was also a university student while still in high school. Obviously, I chose philosophy as my major. I eventually stopped my studies because I was very stressed, even though I was successful in them. Another reason I stopped is because I couldn't bear the social interactions that were a consistent feature in the classes. In the education system before university, I got excellence certificates for several years in a row. In university, the courses I took were: The Philosophy of Morality; The Philosophy of the Mind ; Anthropology; The History of the Chinese Empire (Pre-Communist); Greek Philosophy; and Anti-Heroic Literature -- in that order. The last two were abandoned when I decided to drop out. Dropping Out Why have I decided to drop out? It was because of the stress I was under. I believe that, regardless of my education being beneficial, it also damaged my mental health, slowly but gradually. In short, even though I was and am talented,  I fell between the chairs  because I didn't manage to fit in. I recall the version of myself I was in kindergarten, being all jolly and lacking any seriousness, but as time marched on, I became more and more gloomy and even nihilistic. The conventional world changed me, made me lose my emotions , and encouraged me to repress myself. The education system made me a dark person, and despite my success there, I haven't managed to fit in the conventional world. A teacher told me that I needed to carve my own path and carving my own path I did. The Odd Mixture As you can see, my education could be regarded as odd and unique. It was a mixture of autodidactic learning, private lessons, extended public education, and some academic education. My knowledge of the English language was largely my own, too. I had my reasoning. Because of said mixture, I wasn't able to pick certain jobs because they required a degree, despite being educated even without it. This philosophy blog is a product of said odd mixture, where you have an eccentric range of articles. Eventually, I allowed in a lot of guest posts to make the range of articles even larger. As the years went by, I slowly realized that I have nothing to live for, but philosophizing. Some of you may deem philosophy unnecessary. I philosophize to stay sane. This is why it matters to you, the reader, or at least why it should matter. It's because I'm trying my best, per my abilities and limitations, to craft a unique website with a unique set of articles for the world to enjoy for free. You might clearly see that I am educated and even intelligent , but there are things that I just can't do, even though it's not obvious at all... I am not a social person , which limits my ability to cooperate with the conventional world. I'm a rebel and an innate outsider, meaning I am unwilling fit into conventional molds, instead preferring to live and work on this website under my own terms . I will never partake in the academia again as a result. Being an innate outsider, I am not a caterer by heart. Instead, I resort on passion to work. The way I communicate is unique and is not always easy to understand me. To understand me, you require to activate your ability to think critically. As a tip, you should understand that my words should be taken as that is more innocent than you might think and not give in so easily to your platonic impressions. End Notes In the end, I want my unique journey to inspire you as much as my education has inspired me to be a philosopher. Call it "deep thinking", call it "wondering,", call it "contemplating". I am confident that you have the idea already. Philosophy should be written not only to be served as fact but also to inspire one to think about existence. Contemplation is underrated. It's underrated because we may be quick to dismiss content and people with little-to-no thought. By dismissing unique ideas, we shoot ourselves and the foot and prevent ourselves from further understanding. Furthermore, we may fail doubting our assumed premises, and as a result we may be deluding ourselves by underestimating or overestimating the world beyond our mind. Philosocom is best approached with an open mind and with curiosity for learning. Please understand that I am doing my best, despite my shortcomings, to give you a high-quality philosophy blog, that is free of charge. All I want, ultimately, is to give my fair share to the world, and to contribute.

(Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Dilemmas and Problems) (Philosocom's Directory of Choice and Decision) The Sensitive Originator's Dilemma Summary by Mr. Apollo Sage The article "The Sensitive Originator's Dilemma -- What I Chose" explores the conflict between solitude and seeking public recognition. The author, a sensitive individual, grapples with the challenges of being misunderstood. They acknowledge that being unknown brings peace, but public life often invites judgment, leading to frustration and social withdrawal. Despite this, they reject complete solitude, recognizing that withholding their talents would be a waste. The article emphasizes the importance of resilience in public life, where misinterpretation is inevitable. Ultimately, they embrace public presence to build a meaningful legacy and commit to creating and sharing philosophy and art. (Background music) Anonymity is the loner's greatest ally, and thus loners are more inclined to lie low from the world. For you, lying low from the world might be seen as a misfortune. However, you might not realize that there are more perspective than yours, equally justified in their subjectivity... You see, the more unknown you are, the less likely people will bother you. While some may observe social communication as fun , many others might perceive interpersonal communication as meddlesome in their attempts to rest, pursue their hopes and dreams , and in general, work on their fabric of happiness... Whether your presence in the world is received positively or negatively, the mere fact that you are being received, and not being left alone, is the most basic indication that people care for you, even if that caring is ultimately hurtful. Apathy, after all, is strength when it lifts much excessive concern from your shoulders. It's called being carefree. As such, when you are a bigshot , you might also find yourself the most concerned out of everyone involved in whatever organization you're part of. For being horribly misunderstood, masterminds might find themselves bitter, stern and aloof, observing the utter incompetence of those they once had much faith in. Actually good and genius leaders therefore may ask themselves why should they bother in the first place, being so sensitive about the learned helplessness of others. Not only about followers of course, but also of family, of lovers, and perhaps, of their own children as well. It might make you feel utterly discouraged about a world who you might have in your heart, much desire and willpower to improve it. This utter inability of many to understand you, make you ask questions such as: Why shouldn't I just lurk in the dark? Why shouldn't I give up on trying to help others? How can I expect humanity to understand my pain? Other people might not want for you to care too much about them... If such a thing even exists, caring too much could lead to a spreading of misinformation, making you horribly misunderstood by more and more people. And as such, the very world you might want to care about, encourages you to be oblivious and numb about it. Feeling forsaken despite the fact people just don't have the capacity to understand you like you might want them to, you might be tempted to resort to either a very painful life of trying to ruthlessly communicate yourself to others, or just impose hermitage on yourself, preventing yourself from wanting to open up to most people. The more eccentric you are, whether by birth or by intention, the more likely your image will be received inaccurately as to who you really are, simply because people are often quick to judge. They might be more inclined to judge, than to understand. In such cases, not only will you not be left alone, you will also be harassed from time to time by people who are too confident in their wrong assumptions towards you. In their lack of inner strength to break their own mental prisons, you might find yourself more and more anti-social in your behavior. Aggressive, full of rage, and so on... Either way, if one is to become a public figure, such as an author, politician, philosopher, and so on, judgment, whether true or false, will haunt you from time to time. If you are introverted by nature, the reception will not always be easy, especially if you are sensitive. If you, like me, are a sensitive person, and you wish to be known beyond the circles of friends, family, and co-workers, you must prepare yourself to the possibility that people will care about you, whether you like it or not, and no matter how that caring will be honored or utterly despicable. Furthermore, never expect most people the ability to understand you and your pain. Either.... find a tribe to bias yourself to, or be left alone. Sometimes, that tribe is one person. Just one. You do not have to... be understood by the entire globe, when you can find refuge in the arms, mind and heart of just one.... That's true love. I did not always want to be a philosopher. At first, I wished to become a hermit. I had fantasies of living alone, like I do now technically, with the exception of rarely communicating with the world. I used to wish I wouldn't have to communicate with anyone at all... However society is a necessity even when it is involuntary. Because of the hardships I went through in school, when very loud screams were frequent on a daily basis, I craved for some silence and for the lack of social activities which were forced on me. I preferred studying alone and studied better on my own. I realized that if I were to decide to be a hermit, it would be greatly problematic to the use of my skills. A life spent without utilizing my skills, is one whose thought about it renders me feeling guilt and shame. When you're a full-time hermit, you are not very likely to be remembered... Or you might find yourself oppressed by others... Therefore, the choice of being a hermit was a very difficult one to even consider, because it would be a great waste of both skill and time. I could've lived a more offline life, but that would entail not contributing to the world whatsoever. Yet... you see... my heart is very big, so I can't let go. I am not one who... likes becoming heartless. In fact, I don't know if I can EVEN BE heartless... To be sincere, I appreciate the courage of politicians to forsake their private, small daily lives and become an authority greater than themselves; an authority that is within the sphere of a whole country. They did not have to do so, whether they craved for power or not. They did not have to become a laughingstock in the eyes of the countless many of those whom they serve and those who they don't. It doesn't feel very good to be constantly laughed at, especially if you're sensitive. However, that is an inevitable possibility, if one wishes to be distinctive in such a way that shall exceed their anonymous lives for the sake of others. Yet, in the end, whether you're as graceful as Gandhi or as tyrannical as Kim Jong Un, the thought of an utter lack of negative reception during a public period of endeavor is a very naïve, unrealistic one. Sensitivity, therefore, can more often than not be a great obstacle in the path to public remembrance. Ruthlessness, therefore, is a virtue in that regard , but, either way, do not expect yourself to be well-understood. The precision of understanding is much at the responsibility of others... If one wishes to become a public figure of any way, AKA, an author, an originator, founder or creator, one must fight against the sensitive desire to withdraw, to completely give up on an idea of which one wishes to lead and execute. Instead of being insulted, one should work on the fact that any reception is important enough, to serve as the evidence that you matter. You, and your work. If Donald Trump wasn't a politician or even a businessman, but just a clerk or had any other low-status job , only few would pay attention to his thoughts, whether with respect or with mocking laughter. Just to be recognized for who you are, you often have to go through very great lengths. We all live in public space and, unless we're imprisoned or institutionalized permanently, we all have a right to be present in said space, and also to express said presence in a way that doesn't overexert us.... Some may try to put down the presence of others for whatever reason they find legitimate to do so, but it doesn't mean you should always back down and act in accordance to shaming, bullying, condescending or any other form of hurting others intentionally. Feel free to express your thoughts , because ultimately public space is a free space, and is not at the authority of moderation that isn't local. Just... don't expect people to understand the underlying, hidden reasoning of why you express the things you express.. The other option is to succumb to introversion, an option that some may choose to do when they face adversity. There is great peace in full hermitry, as I have witnessed myself, but with it one must give up the likelihood of their own contribution to the world, and instead remain as insignificant as an ant in terms of being remembered. Whether or not future generations of my siblings will remember me, I can say for certain that I rarely remember any of my ancestors... I only heard of their existence from my parents and grandparents. Beyond pictures and the locations of their graves, I have no recollection of their existence. Even though I respect them for ultimately bringing me into the world, I can say for certain that I do not want to have the same fate of falling into obscurity.... I don't know about you, but I have made my decision in this dilemma: I will try to overcome my sensitivity, because in the end, it is nothing more than a counterproductive obstacle! I will give up on complete hermithood, as long as it will entail becoming bigger than myself! And thus, I'll forever be forming and preserving a glorious legacy for generations to come! A glorious legacy for the interconnectivity of the world! In love! In solitude! In power! It matters not! I will always want to keep making a massive, beautiful wonderland of art and philosophy for the world to enjoy! I will always refuse giving up my heart entirely either way!

The Directory https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-epicurean-smoker-exploring-hedonism https://www.philosocom.com/post/why-pure-joy-could-be-a-problem https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-absurdity-of-fun https://www.philosocom.com/post/why-the-truth-isn-t-always-interesting-the-bored-man-s-fallacy The pleasures of the flesh become ecstasies for the mind -- Mr. John Duran (Background music) Hedonism: A Critique Hedonism , the belief that the attainment of pleasure should be above all, lacks something essential for maintaining human civilization and its order: The consideration of other people's feelings, especially those who wish to either help or serve us. Hedonism is therefore problematic as a philosophy because it presents us with no other alternative to consider the existence of others. That is, other than the fact that they can either give us pleasure, unease, or nothing at all. In order to have compassion towards other human beings, we must be willing to participate in their suffering. This is what I also call the "fast food attitude": We mostly disregard the conditions of those who make our food, for we just care about having a good, tasty meal. So what if the delivery person almost collided with a tree on their way? So what if the workers at the fast food chain were too nervous they forgot a certain ingredient in your pizza or hamburger? In the end, for the hedonist, it is the product that counts, and not the wellbeing of others who made it for him/her, with pay or without. That is along with whether or not that product gives him/her the pleasure they seek. The same reasoning applies in what I call the contentist approach. This is also true, to be blunt, in online video games. It's a hobby that is filled with toxic communities that won't hesitate to tell you weirdly traumatic things if you did not play the way they wanted you to, because if you did, you would give them fun. The reality of such experiences is that the dignity of your fellow players is far more unimportant than the hedonist's zealotry towards having a good time with the game they play. In general, it seems that the pursuit of fun has become some sort of a "religion" for many people. Unlike our many ancestors, the value of joy has been put at a far higher priority than in any other time. Even when we work, we have many sources of pleasure that did not exist any time before the industrial and digital revolutions. It is no surprise, therefore, that some of us have become fun-seekers rather than depth-seekers or wealth-seekers. The possible reason for that being, that there is much to enjoy from, more than ever before. With our constant seeking of new and newer sources and content of fun, we basically feed a globally-entertaining industrial complex. It lives and prospers over our lack of satisfaction with what we already have. That, in itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. But it still doesn't answer the following question: why should one care about other people, if they do not bring one the fun they so desire? This "religion" could create a future where only the most entertaining shall prosper, while those who bore most would be cast aside. I guess you can call it a Hedocracy — a regime where only the most entertaining reign supreme. And indeed, dismissing someone or something because they are boring, is a fallacy of its on. You can also say that such "hedocracies" already exist, especially among younger audiences. As we lose patience, our attention span decreases as well, leading to the social and even financial prosperity of many content creators. People who know exactly what duration their content should be, what it should contain to keep the viewers from watching other content, and so on. This is why, logically, we could say that books are becoming more and more something that belongs to the past, as it is replaced by virtual content one can access without the need to pay or to go to the nearest library. Anyways, I have to mention that the shorter people's attention spans will be, the less successful sites such as this would be. That is because of the sad truth that, short-term spikes of joy are for most far more desired than a long-time reading whose worth will only come at the end of the piece. Perhaps we won't need to write anymore, as the interest in reading will significantly decrease over the consumption of videos , embedded with large words and background music made to catch your attention. Should we fail in giving the future generations a reason to enjoy extensive reading, then articles such as this, along with countless books , will be cast aside for content made to entertain more than to teach, educate, or make you contemplate. Of course, there are still those who read a lot, but when you are to ask a person of the far future, should they watch a video or read an article, the probable reply might be the latter, for it is usually much more entertaining than mere reading. Videos, after all, have music in them, and save us the effort required for reading. All we need to do is to listen — even when we can also do other activities while listening or watching said video. Because of all of these reasons, the mere pursuit of pleasure is often insufficient in justifying the existence or the worth of other things in our lives, which are more often than not, important by themselves. Thanks to this shift in perspective, those who have the time and education can find jobs that they truly enjoy. The suffering can justify the rewarding end. Furthermore, thanks to the help of liberty and secularism, some people at least don't have to fight against their families once they become adults, in the matters of profession, education, marriage, and bringing up a family. "Live and let live" is a very important saying nowadays, but it still does not answer this: If we can all live however we want, then what is the need for cooperation and caring for each other on a genuine level? With this great apathy to other people, there could be a great danger to our own morality, as if we're becoming "tribal" again; a step backwards in our sense of identity. In many countries, theoretically, being a fellow citizen of the same nation doesn't matter as much as it used to be when many people rebelled against imperialism and colonialism in favor of forming their own national identity as one, sovereign people. Look at your fellow countrymen or countrywomen: what do you feel towards them, just for having the same nationality as you? See what I mean? We are in an age of loneliness and alienation , and many of us just don't care when we can just enjoy ourselves. Who cares about participating in the struggles of those we care about, when feeling good feels far better? That, is the immorality of hedonism. If we wish, therefore, to preserve and improve human empathy and compassion, we must realize that fun, even if greatly rewarding, is insufficient for the preservation of a "humane" humanity. What kind of humanity do we want? One that cares for each other in distress, helps others without expecting anything in return, and asks children "what's wrong" and "why do they cry"? Hedonism by its very nature rejects feelings of unease and discomfort, even if they are caused by the suffering of others. It ignores the fact that these emotions deserve legitimacy because the desire to have a better time is a poor excuse to disregard our compassionate selves . I had to develop a neuroplastic method to murder much of my emotions, just to survive in such a hedonistic world. Conclusion Hedonism, therefore, while it can lead to a life of good wellbeing, couldn't care less for the good wellbeing of others. At least from a personal testimony, many people would prefer to "eat you alive" than considering the fact that you are an imperfect human being, like them. The constant ignoring of my condition, led me to conclude that my wellbeing is more important than their lack of "fun" while reading my articles. Wouldn't you do the same if you were as sensitive as I used to be? What distinguishes me and the hedonist, however, is my desire to contribute and not be totally invested in unproductive joy — hence why I resume writing. I decided to provide a link to a video showcasing a toxic online community. I'm not responsible for whether or not you'll click it.

For more on this rationality, click here . (Philosocom's Directory of Choice and Decision) (Background music) Introduction How many of you genuinely dream of becoming rich one day? Not just rich enough to not have to worry about your next pay-check, but rich enough to have access to all the pleasures of life ? To be able to travel the world, drink the finest wines, own the biggest mansions, and afford even the most ridiculous microtransactions in video games ? If you had the ability to afford most if not everything you could ever dream of, even beyond what some may consider as unrealistic, would you still be willing to become filthy rich, just to get expensive things to make you happy? Or would you rather find satisfaction in other things, such as relationships, experiences, or personal growth? There is no right or wrong answer to this question. It is a matter of personal preference. Some people find that money can buy happiness , while others find that it cannot. Either way, you may find out that settling for less can sometimes be enough. The Pursuit of Wealth I am not against the idea of becoming wealthy, especially if you made your wealth through hard work. However, I think it is important to consider the true value of wealth. Is it really worth it to spend your life working hard for money , when you could be enjoying your life in other ways? I come from a very materialistic country. When I watch YouTube, I am constantly bombarded with ads for people who are trying to sell me their secrets to financial success. They show me pictures of their fancy cars and big houses, and they tell me that I can have the same things if I just follow their advice. But I am not convinced. I think that there is something missing from these people's lives. They may have a lot of money, but they don't seem to be very happy . They are always chasing the next big thing, and they never seem to be satisfied with what they have. I believe that there is more to life than money . There are many things that are more important, such as relationships, experiences, and personal growth. If you are constantly chasing after money, you are missing out on these things. Of course, money is important. It can provide you with security and comfort. But it is not the most important thing in life. There are many other things that are more important, such as happiness and fulfilment. So, if you are considering pursuing wealth, I urge you to think carefully about what is really important to you. Is it really worth it to spend your life working hard for money, when you could be enjoying your life in other ways? We Should Put the Idea of "Compensation" Aside It is not giving up on something you will not get to enjoy; it is the journey towards a far more practical and cost-effective solution to an otherwise boring life. The same result problem occurs when you are satisfied in a very expensive way, or by means that costed you a lot. You may find out that spending the night alone, doing something you like, might satisfy you the same as spending it in a nightclub with friends. Choose the former option and you saved yourself time and resources. Regardless of your decision, the destination is the same, so why needlessly pay energy when you can save it and get the problem over already? It is one of the reasons I choose to spend my time working on Philosocom and little else. I find myself already enjoying what I do, so I don't see much reason to spend a lot of time enjoying and not being as productive as I currently am. You may find out that the destination of satisfaction, and thus to a life well-lived, as numerous pathways. One does not have to be greater in importance than the other. One does not have to matter more just because it is the most popular or orthodox path. Don't stress yourself too much on orthodox paths. To all the rich people reading this article, I am not anti-rich, I just don't understand the overall purpose of being rich. I mean, if you want a business, you don't have to buy a whole skyscraper, if you want a happy wedding for example, it does not have to include hundreds if not thousands of guests or be grandiose in general. So much money is being wasted over the same thing that could have been attained, nonetheless. Taking a long hike in the woods, for example, is something that can be done without much money, if at all. The same result problem occurs when you realize you've wasted resources on a result that could've been achieved for far less. Observe cats and you will understand that one does not need much.

(Subcategory On Twisted Morality) (Background music) The Cracks in Goodness: When Intentions Crumble Recent contemplations reveal that, while I strove for the large majority of my life to be morally good, I have basically done so for the, so-called, "wrong" reasons. It can be explained by an anecdote I remember from my childhood: I once smashed an ant with my foot during recess or something. A witness to the "murder" of the ant approached me and asked me: "Would you want to be smashed too, if you were an ant? After all, we don't choose to be humans just like ants didn't choose to be ants ". In hindsight, that person's question may seem extremely moral. A former pastoral counselor , Mr. Ronald Wright , defines extreme morality as: "...The ‘goodness’ or ‘badness’ of a thought or action taken to a most excessive perspective whether it be to the right of center or to its left. “Extreme” would be to the outer edge or fringe and be characterized by militaristic bravado". However, when thinking about it further, it expresses the desire to be good for the "wrong" reasons: Just in the name of self-servitude, and nothing further. It does not encourage you to be mindful of the ant and of its daily dangers (like being crushed and so on). It encourages you to save your own moral character. The philosophy of being good just to get oneself covered, is basically corrupt, simply because the intention in hand is corrupt, even though it is not truly evil . In other words, that person themselves wouldn't kill the ant because he cares for the life and future of the ant. He merely wants to not be killed themselves, if the roles were reversed, and he were the ant, and the ant were the stepping human. This logical reasoning can hold logical ground if reincarnation is true. Perhaps this is the reason why I suffered so much throughout my life, even though I wanted to be good at all costs: It was merely for the sake of not being the accused one, the one at fault, and not for the sake of the sanctity of good. Therefore, guilt and shame have their own usefulness. Breeding Good Sheep, Not Good Humans To not be the student yelled for not doing their homework; To not be the kid, yelled and punished by his parents, for doing bad things; To be the law-abiding citizen, s imply to not be branded a criminal by law enforcement . What broke me mentally was, eventually, the desire to be a good worker, simply for not being condemned as an incompetent and, thus, disposable employee, back at an office. My lifelong-growing anxiety to be good, was made simply for not being branded as bad, and not for the sake of serving good, in the name of good itself. That was, and is, ultimately, my karmic sin; the reasoning of my suffering, and ultimately, the catalyst of my "Reaping Fatigue Era" , which poorly affected my site's article quality. I avoid any other work than my site because I don't want to risk another era. I had enough but I digress. The education system is flawed , because we as students were taught to be good simply for our own good, and to escape condemnation by others and by ourselves. That is a flaw, as that philosophy lacks honesty . It lacks the intention of doing good in the name of doing good and in the name of altruism ( and thus caring about people other than ourselves ). Perhaps, this is why we suffer nowadays. Because we are anxious to "cover our butts" with good deeds, while in reality, care mostly, if not entirely, about ourselves. This philosophy encourages us to not only be good, but to be bad as well, should we be able to have a front of who we really are, like the character Gus Fring did with his chicken restaurant as a cover for his criminal empire. This is what creates the fear of coming clean publicly, and the safety, that lies in being fake while committing misdeeds. Fiction as a Safe Space Why do we love fiction? We may like fiction for the same reason a smaller portion of us crave video games . Fiction allows us to see characters who are truly honest about themselves, especially the villains, the antagonists. When a fictional villain confesses to the hero their true intentions, they usually do so with little to no regret. If they had regret for the deeds they did, they would not be villains, but anti-villains , or people with a good amount of redeeming qualities. If we are ourselves the creators of fictional characters, that allows us to be truly honest about our true selves, true a mask and a medium that legitimizes it. You might find out that you discover new things about yourself by creating and developing these characters. You might not confess things to the "mask" of yourself, in real life, as that would have consequences. However, within the realm of fiction, that is not the same. You can be a tyrant, a narcissist, or a vengeance-seeker through murder, and as long as you do so through the mask of fiction, no one will suspect you; because of that, no one will condemn you for murdering a fictional character as much as of a real person . Unveiling the Human Behind the Persona The contemporary desire to be good comes from the fear of being condemned as the exact opposite. Due to a desire for an afterlife, as presented in the notion of paradise ( paradoxical as paradise is ), the religious may desire to be good simply for this reward. Real life is, eventually, a theater of its own; of people who do not have the guts to confess their true intentions. So, instead, they deceive to cover up their ulterior motives . Some of these intentions, practically, might make us deserve to be condemned. This is why, ultimately, reality contains plenty of fakeness in it. It would only make sense in such a world where working as actors is considered prestigious. That is true, especially when you climb the social ranks, and become a public figure. As a public figure, you eventually have to "sell" the public on what they truly want. To follow and elect a person who is honest and just, even if, in reality, you are not at all that . After all, it's easier for the mind to deny the uncomfortable truth. And if you're good at doing it, you can be evil and cruel in its cover, as expressed in Mr. John Duran's Story, "For the King's Royal Pleasure" , which I analyzed. Thus, the more popular you are, the more you will have to, eventually, hide things from the world, either through keeping secrets , through deception, or both. The world does not have to be a "dog-eat-dog" world, but it nonetheless is because it is inhabited by a bunch of cowards who normalize their cowardice into the population. Cowards, who would refuse to crush ants, simply because they fear the reality where they are crushed themselves. Or for that metaphor to work better, they would crush ants in secrecy, and market themselves as peaceful, powerful people who wouldn't crush ants nor hurt a fly. But if we were more honest with ourselves, not in private but in public, THAT is when we would be capable of healing ourselves and our morality through redemption and atonement. Breaking the Chains of Hypocrisy Ultimately, why do I write so much? It is simply an escape. Not an escape from reality, but from the dangers of mental illness, in the name of mental survival . That is the truth. I simply want to contribute, merely for the sake of not deeming my life worthless, and that of a parasite, or a "klumnik" . Thus, despite my good nature, I am, nonetheless, corrupted by moral egoism , and I have no one to blame but myself. That is what led me to suffer so much in this life, despite the fact that I did my best to not do anything wrong. It is time to end the hypocrisy that lies behind being good; the one that educates people, but does not enlighten them to be sincere, to come clean. In the end, even if it's a generalization, we are all hypocrites in our own way, simply by the fact that we do not come clean with our true intentions. We can learn from the General Skarr Allegory how miserable one can be when they are not fully honest with themselves about their intentions. Alex Mos's Counter Argument "Good deeds to satisfy somebody’s ego are good deeds and there is nothing wrong about satisfying yourself if you do good Doing good from fear is similar; as long as people do good, it’s fine." The question I (Mr. Tomasio) ask to you is: Is it good to live in fear just to be good? Is living under constant fear, good for our mental health? Take note that fear can negatively impact health in general. By the same token, should we sacrifice our mental health on the altar of morality, when we can be moral without this sacrifice? This leads to a problem I'd like to call " The Same Result Problem ". In other words, genuine concern for other beings is preferable than living in constant fear and/or anxiety from punishment even if both lead to the same positive result.

(Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Dilemmas and Problems) (Background music) The Problem With Destiny Arguably, the most problematic type of individuals are those who believe that they are guided by some kind of mystical force called " destiny ," which they perceive as so powerful that it can protect them in times of distress. It in theory could make them problematic because they might take more unnecessary risk, under the belief that they are guided by the hands of fate. As a result, people would unnecessarily suffer from their misadventures. This same concept is often depicted in works of fiction, where it is referred to as " plot armor ." Plot armor simply means that one or more characters are deemed too important to die at a particular point in the story, and therefore, they will not die, even in situations where their demise is highly probable. The flawed reasoning behind the belief that we are "destined" to accomplish things is quite straightforward. Regardless of whether you are an ordinary clerk or someone destined to discover the cure for cancer, if a tank were to suddenly appear and run over both of you, you would both likely perish. The clerk's low social status in society compared to that of the future cancer cure inventor is irrelevant in this scenario. The future-cure-inventor will not be saved from the tank's weight, just because his potential contribution is more important to humanity. Accidents, along with other unpredictable events, do not discriminate between individuals based on their perceived level of importance or potential impact on the world. The concept of "destiny" is problematic because it suggests that certain individuals are immune/more resilient to death or misfortune due to their perceived future achievements or importance. This notion is flawed because death is an inevitable reality that can strike anyone, regardless of their perceived potential or role in the world. Even if someone is deemed to have a significant "destiny" to fulfill, they are still susceptible to the same accidents, illnesses, or unforeseen circumstances that could befall anyone else. The idea of "plot armor" often found in fictional works further reinforces this unrealistic perception of invulnerability. Fictional characters may be protected from harm or death due to their importance to the storyline, but this concept does not translate to real life. In the real world, there are no guarantees, and even the most extraordinary individuals are not exempt from the unpredictability of life. It is why reality can, most often than not, disappoint, or subvert our expectations in any way realistically possible. We can do so ourselves as well, for we too are part of this reality. This is one of the reasons why some people may find fictional narratives unrealistic. The predictability and artificial nature of certain storylines can clash with our understanding of the real world, where outcomes are often uncertain and not always aligned with our expectations. Whether someone is a celebrated figure like Mother Teresa or an ordinary merchant, they are equally susceptible to the laws of physics and the unpredictable nature of life (AKA, being crushed by a tank, for example). No amount of perceived destiny or importance can shield them from the consequences of accidents, illnesses, or unforeseen circumstances of any kind. Why, then, complain that things are not the way "they are supposed to be"? Why would you think that things will necessarily go according to some intended plan? The reality is that with each passing moment, we are all at risk of death. Our potential, however great, can be rendered useless and wasted in the face of life's unpredictable events. Unlike fictional heroes with plot armor, we do not have the luxury of knowing that our "destiny" will be fulfilled. In the face of this uncertainty, what truly matters is our ability to appreciate and make the most of each day, recognizing that our time on this earth is finite, and therefore, limited in a potential that is gradually reduced by time. While we cannot control the events that may befall us, we can choose to live meaningfully, per our attempted plans, cherishing the moments we have, and prepare for the uncertainty of existence. I have come to question the concept of a predetermined destiny for greatness, as it provides no guarantee of survival. No angels or spirits will shield me from fatal harm if I were to be struck by a car or crushed by a tank. The supposed greatness of my destiny will not protect me from sudden death . No one is so important in this world to be bestowed with an impenetrable shield, such as the plot armor found in fictional works. Therefore, we should not let the pursuit of an undefined destiny justify unhealthy or unsafe behaviors . Instead, we should prioritize our well-being and take steps to enhance our health, strength, and safety. These measures will undoubtedly increase our chances of survival far more than any virtue related to perceived destiny. Once we have established a greater degree of survivability, we can then focus on fulfilling our potential in life. While greater security in life does not ensure the avoidance of evitable death, it can surely reduce it. In this uncertain existence, survivability is the only realistic alternative to the fictional concept of plot armor. Its real life counterpart are unproven beliefs of above-than-average destiny. To optimize our potential, we must strive to extend our lifespan . Even world leaders, who may seem invincible, are not immune to sudden death, and can die at any time, just like any other person.

(Philosocom's Directory on Power) (Philosocom's Mastery Series) Alex Mos's Synopsis We seek power in an attempt to achieve, influence , and feel like we have some control over our lives and the world around us. Power can manifest in countless ways, driven by the desire to learn, grow, and leave our mark on the world. Mastering a skill, healing people, advocating for a cause, or creating impactful content as an artist are a few examples of the achievements of power. At its core, power is the ability to influence and create change. It can mean material possessions , practical expertise, or intellectual knowledge. For those who want to be more powerful, mastery is the key to craftsmanship, the artist's masterpiece, and influential leadership. Everybody has the potential to become powerful and make a difference. However, it often takes time and practice. Mastery makes you irreplaceable in any organization . Self-confidence is necessary to seek mastery, but we must overcome our ego and the need for validation . Masters can leave their legacy by teaching their abilities to the next generation and enriching the world. Pursuing mastery can serve as a long-term, meaningful goal, channeling our energy and justifying our existence. (Background music) Why We Crave the Power to Make Things Happen There's a reason why video games contain difficulty , buildings are designed from scratch , and romantic relationships bring a certain sense of accomplishment. What if power is more accessible than we think? The reason all of these examples exist, is because we need power to attain or conquer them for ourselves, whether out of need or desire. This drive for power, in its most basic sense, is the desire to achieve, to influence, and ultimately, to feel like we have some control over our own lives and the world around us. Additional Examples of the Power of Achievement The Learner:  Mastering a new language, a musical instrument , or a complex skill like coding is a powerful achievement, motivating you to focus, persevere through frustration, and expand your knowledge base to apply your potential. This newfound power can open doors to new opportunities, careers, and ways of understanding the world. The Healer:   Doctors, nurses, therapists, and anyone who helps others overcome physical or emotional challenges wield a powerful form of achievement, capable of transforming entire lives, including those of the people around them. They take someone struggling and use their knowledge and skills to bring them back to health or well-being. It's a testament to the power of human compassion and the ability to make a positive impact on people's lives. The Advocate:  Social workers, activists, and anyone who fights for a cause they believe in, tap into a powerful force, capable of reformation, innovation and revolution. They challenge the status quo, raise awareness, and work to create a change they deem positive. The power of their achievement lies in their ability to make a difference in the world, even in the face of opposition, and despite of it. The Artist:  Whether it's painting a masterpiece, composing a symphony, or writing a novel, artists translate their vision and emotions into a form that can touch others, enlighten minds and excite hearts. Their achievement lies in the power of creativity to evoke emotions, spark discussions, a lasting impression for any who consume their content. These are just a few examples, and the drive for power can manifest in countless ways. It's about having faith that can make a difference, big or small, and leave our mark on the world. The drive for power is fundamental human desire that motivates us to learn, grow, and achieve the vision we want to see around and inside of us. The Many Facets of Power At its core, power is the ability to influence or affect a situation. As such, everything can hold a degree of power. It's not just, or necessarily, about having "more" of something, whether it's friends , money , or value. It's about wielding those resources to create change. Material Power:  Money and possessions are undeniable forms of power. They provide access to opportunities and influence. However, this is just one facet of power. A skilled negotiator, even on his own, can often out-maneuver an entire intended business arrangement, as presented in Walter White buying off Declan's crew in "Breaking Bad". The Allure of Skill:  Expertise in any field grants power, one that can distort our perception, as presented in the degree fallacy and the authority fallacy. A master chef has power over the ingredients and the ability to create culinary masterpieces. A skilled surgeon possesses a significant deal of power over life and death. A plastic surgeon can dictate how others may see you. While resources can enhance skill, it's the skill itself that allow a more-effective application of them. The Power of Knowledge:   The intellectual's power comes not just from raw intelligence, but from the ability to use knowledge to solve problems, create new ideas, and inspire others. In the age of information , the possession of information, and the ability to earn it, is vital to your success. Mastery: The Key to Unlocking Your Power Power is the ability to influence and create change. With it, you can shape your world, and by extension, other people's world. The quest for mastery, as such, is the quest of power, as mastering a skill can increase your power significantly. Therefore, for those wanting to be more powerful due to whatever motive, mastery is imperative to make the change you want to see happening. The Craftsman's Power:   A skilled carpenter isn't just building cabinets and other furniture, they're transforming raw materials into functional works of art, thus shaping the spaces we inhabit, and contributing to various spaces. This is the power of expertise, which can be defined as the ability to translate skill and material into tangible impact. The Artist's Voice:  The artist's power doesn't come from a fat paycheck, and sometimes it isn't even done for money (as presented in "The Starving Artist" trope) . It comes from the ability to move hearts and minds with their creations, and convert their vision into perceptive form . A talented musician can inspire emotions and ignite social movements, wielding a power far greater than any financial reward: The ability to craft cultural assets. The Leader's Influence:  Community leaders don't need a high office to be powerful. Their dedication and passion empower others, fostering change and progress within their communities. This is the power of influence , of inspiring action and collective impact. This is an asset that doesn't even have to come from standing or privilege, like one that stems from monarchies. Power in Every Path Traditionally, power conjures images of wealthy elites or political leaders.  However, the possession of knowledge and expertise, like in technology or any other modern field , can surpass this, paving a justification to the concept of technocracies. While the human desire for power can sometimes conjure images of political leaders or CEOs, the truth is, it manifests in far more ways than just social or political control, or control over other people in general. By honing your merits through skill and discipline, you can increase your own power, as the path to mastery can give you a greater chance of accomplishing your goals. Living and dying by power is how this is done as a habit, with or without other people. The myth that power belongs solely to the wealthy or well-connected is just that - a myth. Failing to see this as a myth, can greatly diminish the potential lies in your own power. Power has many forms, and its build-up often takes much time, practice, trial and error. It is said, for a reason, that empires are (occasionally) built slowly. Furthermore, an overnight's success is rare, to the point that some may consider it a myth . This understanding can empower anyone to find their own path to influence and make a difference -- with much, much patience. And for that, you need to develop your mastery in your given field, so people will have faith in you, your vision, and in the justification to assist you in your endeavours. The more skilful you are, the more irreplaceable you become in any organization, including your own. Even monarchs can and were replaced throughout history due to lack of faith, as seen in King Charles the 1st's demise during the English Civil Wars in the 17th century. The Spark Within: Why the Pursuit of Mastery is the Key to a Meaningful Life The pursuit of mastery is an ongoing journey, filled with challenges and triumphs, and can only be resumed if you refuse to give up in face of adversity. It depends on your devotion to push your boundaries, constantly learn, and strive to be the best version of yourself in your chosen field. To quote Robin Sharma ( Credit: Kreyon Media ): The extent of your impact on the world depends on the size of your devotion to excellence. Within this journey lies the potential to use yourself like a carpenter uses raw material to make cabinets. To designate yourself, like a machine, to a certain function you deem worthy of your time. As such, mindlessly killing time, can be regarded as the waste of your raw potential. The mastery-seeker trains to use that power for his goals. The klumnik, on the other hand , doesn't care enough, or isn't determined enough, to do so. The pursuit of mastery, in any field, opens the door for everyone to claim their own kind of power, and utilize it. This raw power can only be utilized best by mastering the skill in which one can utilize it. And as such, mastery becomes a means to an end. If you want to be understood, strive to become a ruthless communicator , and you can reduce miscommunication to a minimum. If you want to become stronger, master the art of physical training. You can do it for your ego, which is the narcissistic thing to do, but it doesn't have to be like that if you overcome the need for validation. Have you ever watched someone so skilled at something that it seems almost magical? They all possess a kind of power, attainable not only from natural aptitude , but from its training. It is done with or without the need to have subordinates, whether they follow with loyalty or from oppression. As such, mastery isn't just about being good, but about reaching a level of expertise where you can push boundaries, solve problems, and create something truly impactful. You cannot reach it if you refuse to believe in yourself, and you'll surely struggle in having others believe in you if you lack faith in your own power. Therefore, faith plays a great role in your path to harness yourself. This is known as self-efficiency. Otherwise, why bother? The desire to achieve this mastery, the pursuit of ever-increasing skill, is what ignites the spark within us, and programs us to utilize our means for our desired outcomes. It's the reason we push ourselves to learn, to practice, and to constantly improve. One would struggle in doing so if they refuse to criticize, if not lambast, the flaws in them and in their current methods. You can save those who help you from becoming your victims if you work on yourself enough, to render your ego minor in comparison to your ambitions. Thus, by conquering your ego, you can make yourself even more irreplaceable, as then you can prioritize the bigger picture more than your need for self-admiration. Mastery: A Legacy for Generations The usefulness of mastery lies not just in personal fulfillment, but in the legacy it creates. When we master a skill, we possess the ability to become teachers, inspiring and empowering the next generation of masters. By teaching others, our mastery allows us to share our "abstract energy" with the world, transforming it from a personal asset to a wider collective tool for greater functionality. Finding Your Spark Many people fall into the trap of simply existing, going through the motions of work and daily life without a sense of purpose, or with the idea that they have no reason to assign themselves further purpose . As evident by the Paradise Paradox, it is hard for many people to let go of the need to improve and develop. Therefore, the pursuit of mastery offers an antidote to this purposelessness, as it gives us a long-term goal to aspire to, and one we can apply in several fields of life. We always have some degree of energy, and energy is there to be released, not repressed. Repression is there to keep people in line and preserve social order. One's power is a threat to another, so limitation of powers are enforced not by right necessarily, but by norms. This power the spark that ignites passion, fuels purpose, and ultimately, justifies our existence in this world, as more than a product of our environment. But with power you can feel more alive. That's why you should make sure to not let it go over your head, or you might lose touch with reality, or at least severely overestimate yourself. One can attain power, remain moral, and refuse to fall into megalomania. That, may require a mastery itself! Extra Notes Ultimately, mastery can become less about external validation (like collective praise or a trophy) and more about the intrinsic satisfaction of actualizing your full potential as a human being. Even if you never reach the absolute pinnacle of mastery, the journey itself is deeply meaningful. The constant striving to improve imbues your life with purpose and the "life-force" you need to keep going. To quote Norman Vincent Peale : “Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.” In a way, the ownership of your skills, the knowledge that you are constantly growing and improving, becomes a form of power in itself, applicable for your survival in a highly-competitive world . It's the power to define your own existence, to find meaning and fulfilment beyond societal expectations. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback Power is a great subject. In a sense it is something everyone has. They are given free will which means they have the power to change anything in their lives that they want to. Why do people feel as if power has such a high cost? It does but not in a flat sense. If you don’t like something you have all the power in the world to change your mind about it. Problems only exist as constructs in people’s minds. Your mind is something you have complete power over controlling.  Power in the form of mastery doesn’t always have to come from a desire to master it. A true master will never feel they are that good because they are aware of just how little they know . Learning stuff is what affords people to gain "life credits"; Credit that can be used towards new things. A master is on a lifelong journey to always be improving. A person will never see themselves as a master even if they are because they have chosen a journey of constantly improving themselves. Why do you think professionals in sports spend so much time practicing? They might very well be considered masters but it is only because of how much work they put in to themselves. Mastery is also nothing more than the successful application of knowledge. Mastery is nothing more than a drive to learn as much as you can. You should always strive to be a master at everything you do. You never know when learning a new skill might come in handy in another area of your life. Polymathy isn’t something that is reserved for the highly intelligent. I always try to learn new things because as I do them I never know what it’ll make me think about. Using golf as an example: I possess some pretty great abstract cognition. Golfing lets me clear my mind of almost everything so it affords me the chance to let my brain have power for other things. People should work on mastery of life. Isn’t that the point of philosophy?

(Note: I once claimed that all importance is subjective. I now realize I was wrong... Partially wrong, that is! ). (Background music) The Strawman's Fallacy is a common logical fallacy that happens when a being or thing is either distorted or exaggerated beyond proportions, for the sake of rhetoric. For those new to the site, rhetoric is the art of convincing the other side. Many fallacies can be used for the sake of rhetoric, especially for an audience that does not know them, but I digress. It is called a "strawman" because you essentially take a different version of reality, and present it in a way that is supposed to imitate that reality's original version. It's just like an actual scarecrow that is used to imitate an actual human being in order to keep birds away from a farm. Since the birds are not aware that the scarecrow isn't a real human, they are deceived by this fallacy. (And fallacy, for that matter, is a concept that impairs our understanding of the truth.) In order for the strawman fallacy to work, I suggest the idea that we must recognize objective value/importance . Because if something has actual importance, that is independent of our perception, then Strawman's fallacy has every right to exist. On the other hand, if nothing had objective value, this fallacy would've been irrelevant, as things would always legitimately be prone to subjective importance. Because if an actual scarecrow would've been regarded as a human being capable of physically defending itself from a bird's attack, then it would contradict the original meaning of this fallacy: The meaning that argues for an objective difference between an actual guard and a downgraded, deceiving version of one. Surely there is an objective difference between the two, correct? A difference that is independent of our subjective experience (a scarecrow only gives the illusion of defense). Physical examples of this fallacy exist in military warfare. By using decoys , we can outsmart the enemy faction, as they focus fire on the pretentious force, while we can outsmart them. These are examples because they cause the attacker to distort the decoy's own importance in their mind. Thus, you can even use this fallacy on yourself without any awareness. In contemporary reception of my writings, I'd like to argue that some readers may make a strawman out of them, by deeming them less-than-relevant because they felt that they were disrespectful, condescending, and so on. That's not even the point of philosophy, to please the audience in any way. The point is to research the truth, and everything else is minor in comparison. To minimize something's importance because of a subjective experience is therefore an incorrect estimation. And a strawman's fallacy cannot exist without incorrect estimations. I'm talking in terms of objectivity, here, as philosophy was never about people-pleasing. If it were about it, Socrates would avoid asking so many questions, and thus, bothering the citizens of Athens. When we dare to know, we may also dare to cause unease, unintentionally or otherwise. I, personally, have no intention to disrespect anyone on purpose. And I cannot control people's sensitivities. Thus, I now see little reason to be concerned with their ridicule. It's all because they miss the point of a philosophical text: to reach the truth. The strawman's fallacy may be combined with other fallacies, such as the ad-hominem fallacy, where you literally make a metaphorical strawman out of someone, and present them as the real thing. Combine this fallacy with the ad-populum fallacy, and you can make a mockery out of something or someone, purely because they are popular. I guess the stereotypical hipster may use this recent combination. In order to overcome this fallacy, we must aim to see things as they are. We must put ourselves in the eyes of a crow, and raise the possibility that the guard might be nothing more than a fabrication and not an actual threat. And to do that, we must not be so scared by the scarecrow. Succumbing to our subjective experience can mean that we will be deceived by our very own subjectivity. Objective importance does not have to be absolute in order to exist as such. Instead, it can be more rational than otherwise, and be based on conditions. For example, if I only have apples to eat, and don't have anything else to eat, eating apples is more important, right now, than eating food that I don't have (it's just an example). In this case, apples do not have absolute importance, but they are objectively important at the time, for the sake of one's survival. Thus, even if they are not that important in general, they are that important, now. We may degrade the importance of apples, using the strawman's fallacy, and fantasize about far tastier food. However, doing so would undermine the objective importance of apples to our survival in this specific anecdote. This is why I don't think we should put that much emphasis on our subjective experiences. Reality is not subjective, even if our perception of it, is. Both maturity, rationality, and professionalism stem from the recognition of reality, as external to our personal thoughts and feelings. And sometimes, of course, that reality may be more important than our experiences. This isn't to say that subjectivity is not important at all. It's to say that objectivity is imperative for the strawman's fallacy to work. Otherwise, what would it matter to the crow, if the scarecrow is a strawman or an armed guard, that could shoot it down? Their fear, or lack of fear, is an indication of external reality, thus its objective importance in this case. Anything else in this scenario, from the crow's side, doesn't matter. What matters, in this case, is its safety and survival. And for that to work, it must distinguish between the objective value of a strawman and that of an actual man or woman. Case dismissed. Afterthought: In order to reduce this fallacy from happening, here are some tips: Listen carefully to the opponent's argument. You need to hear them fully in order to know what they're talking about. Ask questions to clarify the opponent's argument. This will help you to understand their position better. Make sure they know that the questions are not rhetorical, but sincere, in order to be understood. Be willing to change your own mind. If you find that the opponent's argument is stronger than yours, be willing to admit it. It shouldn't damage your ego if you are sincere in knowing the truth, in this exchange of ideas.

(For more on being a philosopher and being stressed, click here ). (For more meta-philosophical criticism, click here ) (Philosocom's Subcategory On Fatigue and Exhaustion) (Background music) *********************** Why the Pursuit of Truth Can Be Painful Being a philosopher can be a risky dance with truth, a pursuit that is as exciting as it is stressful. While the goal may be to find and share wisdom, the path is paved with thorns. This is because the truth, once unveiled, can be too harsh to bear. It can be scary, unsettling, and even cause psychological pain. My own journey exemplifies this. A close friend, unable to bear the weight of insights that emerged from our philosophical explorations, eventually distanced themselves from me. The love of wisdom, it seems, can lead to uncomfortable truths that bite deep. Those contemplating the path of philosophical inquiry must consider so with caution for truth-seeking is a sacrifice. They must understand that the treasures they seek may not be glittering jewels, but rather tarnished mirrors reflecting harsh realities, for there are very little aspects in this world that are pure. Wisdom may be desirable, but its excavation can unearth disappointment, sadness, and even grief. The allure of knowledge should not blind us to the potential sting of its acquisition. As the quest for the truth requires not only curiosity, but courage. A Philosopher's Confessions Being a philosopher is a double-edged sword. It's a relentless pursuit of truth, a journey through the sunlit grasslands of understanding and the dark, twisted alleys of unsettling realizations. As such, not all wisdom is meant to delve into every ear. Sometimes, the truths unearthed are too heavy to bear, leaving you questioning your sanity or the very notion of what is real or not real. I know this all too well, as the pursuit of wisdom has cost me dearly, as this work is very lonely, as it is lonely at the top , in general. The world often mock the philosopher, dismissing them as pretentious or lost in their ivory towers. But this is a gross expression of the strawman's fallacy , that prioritizes stereotypical impressions over intellectual discourse. The true philosopher is a seeker, not a self-proclaimed sage. If anything, others would likely to deem him or her a sage. We grapple with doubt, embrace the sting of controversy and rejection, and stumble through the labyrinth of arguments, all in the name of understanding. My public role as a writer further complicates matters. I speak to a global audience, yet I have a reputation to maintain as a figure. Despite this, I simply contribute my thoughts, hoping to spark curiosity and ignite inquiry in others. I dislike heart-warming labels like "brother," for it most often then not presents the para-social nature of society. Formality, while seemingly archaic, serves a purpose. It fosters respect and encourages a thoughtful approach to this pursuit. We must treat philosophy and its practitioners with dignity, not because of ego, but because the questions we grapple with are deeply human, and because the practice of philosophy deserves the recognition of its contribution by philosophers who became respected. Frustration is a constant companion on this path. The ease of protest, normalized by contemporary liberty , can quickly turn into a hell of endless, hostile debate. This is why I often find myself tired, seeking refuge from the intellectual tug-of-war of ideas that could instead be discussed, not argued. Yet, I defy the anonymity chosen by my mentor, the professor who first opened my eyes to the beauty of philosophy. In the age of digital anonymity, the ease of bitter criticism can depress the soul . But I persist, for my words are not for the faint of heart, and logic is often heartless and uncaring when our emotions have nothing to do with the topic at hand. They are for those who, like me, hunger for wisdom and find solace in the company of fellow seekers. Despite the hardship and exhaustion, the true philosopher finds solace in the quest itself. The potential to enrich lives, to bridge the gap between the esoteric and the everyday, and the ability to restore the faith of people in being alive, resonates with me the most in life. My quest for my own relevance is intertwined with the quest for making philosophy relevant in the wider world. I am merely a vessel, a preacher of the importance of inquiry and insight distribution. Even when I am tired, I remain a passionate advocate for the right to question, to explore , and to understand. Logic is the tool, but the heart is the fuel. It is the human yearning for knowledge, the insatiable desire to escape the chains of universal ignorance , that drives us forward. We are not pretentious, we are simply human, reaching for the stars, one question at a time. Embracing Imperfection in the Pursuit of Truth Finally, my articles might not be correct, but mistakes are a part of learning , and thus, a part of the philosophical journey. I've no desire to cover up a mistake when I can correct it, for the next article renovation shift. See, therefore, my articles as points for further contemplation, and not necessarily as a "Torah from Mount Sinai." You might know better than me, and vice versa. I am only an "authority" by my lifelong dedication to the craft. Use several sources and don't rely blindly on me or blindly on anyone else. Remember this: The more we learn, the more we become aware of the size of our own ignorance. And because I seek to reduce it as much as possible, I refuse to relent as a philosopher.

(Background music) (Philosocom's Directory on Heart) Make truth your island , make truth your refuge; there is no other refuge.” — Buddha. Introduction " Safe Spaces " are organizations, or specific events, where people gather and communicate, in an attempt to have, even for a while, a safer time with other people. By "safer", I do not refer to what we usually refer to as security , but rather, to the safety of "the heart", per se. The safety of one's emotional balance , where one is "immune" to insults , hate , and so on, temporarily. The point isn't to protect one's life, but one's sense of emotional and interpersonal security, even for a little while. Essentially, Safe Spaces are designated physical or virtual environments where individuals can gather and interact freely, shielded from the harsh adversities of the external. These spaces are designed to foster a sense of emotional security, allowing participants to express themselves openly without fear of judgment, discrimination, or harm. In safe spaces, vulnerability is embraced, not lambasted. It is the same in true love, however, when you are in love you also need to embrace risk-taking . On the other hand, Safe spaces are there to be risk-free. Safe spaces sound very much ideal, however I would like to argue that this search for idealism is, well, very sad. As such I'll explain why I avoid them... Part I: Why I Avoid Them Such specific safety appears to be one that many seek nowadays. I also sought it once, but eventually gave up on the attempt . That's because I realized that it goes against my best interests as a philosopher . I too am more sensitive than average, yet I find it counterintuitive to submit to this liability. Instead I prefer to overcome it. I prefer to overcome any liability and every disability as much as I can by thinking beyond their lens . Allow me to demonstrate how... Submitting to it would mean that I would not have the courage or desire to engage in philosophical discussions with people and gain insights as a result. A philosopher needs insights to write good books, articles and so on . One way to gain insights is through risk-taking. Taking risks require courage. Therefore, safe spaces prevent us from developing courage within us. Safe spaces may not require us to develop any virtue in general. That is despite the fact it is important to develop many virtues within us as a way to survive in society. Also, the more we develop virtues such as consideration, compassion and peacefulness , the less we would need safe spaces in the first place. People in safe-spaces need to be strong enough to accept others. This strength by itself is a virtue and safe-spaces don't encourage such development of virtue but simply encourage you to be yourself. They do not necessarily encourage you to make something out of yourself , which has to do with self-improvement. To allow people to be themselves we need to be strong enough for it. Thus, safe-spaces require strength, or toughness. Part II: The Value of Laws How They Are Counter-Intuitive Here Logic applies even in safe spaces by the rules of which safe spaces are based on. As discussed elsewhere, logic is cold and does not have to consider your emotions, thus making your emotions irrelevant even in the context of safe spaces. Weirdly enough, your emotions, when too difficult to contain, can prevent you from being in a safe space, as the other members in the space may cancel your emotions thus cancel yourself.. Safe spaces do not require you to have empathy towards other people unless stated by the rules. At their core basis, they are there to contain people in a shared context under the virtue of honesty. Realizing Yours and Other Folk's True, Flawed Nature As such, you are not really safe in them if you want people to care for your distress and emotions. Your expectations don't have to be addressed, and you don't have to address people's emotions either. That's the idea about being yourself beyond the usual, social requirement to act. Their caring is their own prerogative, and they are not obliged to care. They are only obliged to not disregard anything else that is required by a space's law to regard. Empathy is not only a choice but something that may require a certain degree of intellect, regardless of emotion. It's known as cognitive empathy . In safe spaces it is only those who are more liked than others that will receive empathy for their distress. Do You understand why? Safe spaces are about allowing people to be more of who they are, rather than compel them to do things they do not want, such as caring for people they do not want to care about. This may lead to conflicts between people because different authentic selves may collide with other authentic selves, along with their interests. In other words you are not compelled to care for others in safe spaces (other than the bare minimum demanded by the rules), and others are not compelled to care for you. The problem comes when we need to empathize with other people in order to understand their situations. And in the lack of understanding, people may get into conflicts with one another, thus making safe spaces not exactly safe. How can safe spaces be safe when there are conflicts within? Safe spaces may of course encourage secrecy. Secrecy is one of the ways safe spaces foster safety. However, people in general may feel to tell secrets to others from that safe space, ruining the safety of the safe space in the process. Safe spaces are built on trust. To trust someone you need luck . Luck, or in other words, a higher-than-average probability that the other side is indeed trusted beyond your understanding of them. Some people deviate more than others, naturally appearing distant as a result. This distant, aloof behavior may naturally create distrust. Trust requires the virtue of vulnerability, and vulnerability compels us to sacrifice ourselves. People in higher positions of authority may find it harder to be vulnerable with others. As such it is lonely at the top. Profound intellects, or geniuses , are always lonely at the top of understanding. Easily appearing as enigmas even to their dear ones, trusting them will be more difficult in general. People who are more shallow may judge you according to shallow demographic data, such as your race, your gender , your nationality and so on. Not everyone even understands some people exist beyond such demographics. As demographics divide people, they also divide trust. Part III: The Essence of Empathy There will always be some degree of potential conflict between people, and the best way to reduce it is by having empathy. Cognitive, emotional, does not matter. If you are unable or unwilling to empathize with other people, you are not going to be safe in a safe space, and that applies to other members as well. Ironically it is this very component that brings us safety. Cognitive empathy is basically the ability to understand someone using your intellect. However, the intellect is limited by many things such as depression and other depravities. Emotional empathy allows you to understand using emotions. However, emotions are limited by your energy and tendency for fatigue. The Struggle To Understand Others Without Empathy Heated debates may stem from wanting to be righter than understanding the other side one argues with. And heated debates may exist in safe spaces as well. It is even more problematic in safe spaces because moderators may censor some exchange of ideas. How can you be more of yourself in a safe environment if you are not allowed to discuss topics you'd like to be discussed? Psychopaths may struggle immensely in safe spaces because their empathy is mainly cognitive. If they don't really care about you, they would easily dismiss you. If they care about you, on the other hand, they can actually read you like an open book. Like with anyone else you can't expect psychopaths to care. A true desire to care always comes from within. When people have other matters to handle, known or repressed by their minds, apathy turns a regular aspect of human life. Many people have a depravity that makes them want to be seen and appreciated. However they may struggle understanding how to do it, how to make themselves seen and appreciated by others in ways that will not make them feel judged, guilt or shame. Guilt and shame will only compel them to withdraw back, despite their need to be embraced and even loved by someone who is more than a mere friend to them. That's the value of friendship! Part IV: Sensitivity As An Issue I do support the reduction of sensitivity in humans in general. Should we be more tough, we can either eliminate or significantly reduce the need of safe spaces. When you need moderators to make you feel protected because you are sensitive, then sensitivity is a problem. Why? Because you then turn dependent on them. That's despite the fact that these moderators/guides/supervisors/admins have lives of their own. Sensitivity is a problem when it causes you to get into meltdowns and panic attacks. It is hard being a philosopher or being in certain other occupations if you react abnormally to insults , for example. The Value of Toughness The whole idea of being tougher lies on the notion that you would be able to better endure other people better and not be very affected by their interactions.... Tougher people do not need the safety element of safe spaces because they do not require the help of moderators to "protect" them from insults or other triggers . Tougher people already have that/these safety mechanism/s within them. Sensitivity Together With Toughness Sensitivity isn't necessarily a disability, but sometimes it appears that some people just submit to it as a fact they can't change. They, as well as I, were wrong , as it still possible to reduce sensitivity. Something to understand about sensitivity... Essentially, it is but a synonym to being vulnerable, and the reasons as to why people do not want to be less vulnerable, is because vulnerability is hard to do in a world where it can easily, easily be exploited by those with malice or ulterior motives. People with ulterior motives are often ulterior even to them. You can call this unconscious manipulation . To solve unconscious manipulation you need to be honest with yourself, not only with others. In theory our unconscious mind may manipulate us as a way to restore ourselves (and others) back to greater wellbeing. The unconscious can be regarded as the will of the universe itself. Excessive sensitivity can prevent harmonious discussions. As such, as Sun Tzu would put it: The wise warrior avoids the battle. Insights, experiences, meaningful relationships with other people, and even love -- all of those can be absent from you as long as you lack the courage to endure the inevitable possibility of adversity , found in any human interaction. Part V: Notes About Philosocom Philosocom is not a safe space, as reading this site and its many articles rests on your shoulders only . I've written here a lot on darker topics, and some of which, may also be depressing. I do not wish for this site to be a safe space, because as a philosopher, it is a part of my occupation to explore and exchange with you, ideas that might be difficult to contain. The whole point of philosophy is to seek the truth , no matter how grim it may be. It takes much courage to learn as you can see. You have to open yourself up to ideas you might otherwise not desire to consume in the first place. Furthermore it takes time to process and reflect on the insights of my glorious article empire. Philosophy in general fosters reflective thinking, or the ability to think about previously-consumed insights. When you seek to learn you better develop intellectual humility , and respect that of which you don't understand. Safe spaces expect you to be yourself/ who do you wish to brand/rebrand yourself as . I expect you to understand my material independently as I too have my own life to lead. I understand that, in order to understand much of this reality in my research, I have to grow my relentlessness and my ruthlessness. For geniuses, ruthlessness is a virtue. Ruthlessness can of course be regarded as what? As insensitive... Conclusions I believe it is imperative upon each individual to cultivate personal growth. This includes... The conscious choice of what information to consume. The conscious choice of what people to hang around with. The conscious choice of when to consume content, and when to talk to other people. The more we make conscious choices, the safer lives we can lead... safer, accordingly to our heart's true desire. It is essential to maintain emotional resilience and to avoid allowing the opinions of others to dictate one's own well-being. While I may be sensitive to the feelings of others, I ultimately bear responsibility for my own emotional state. Bonus Conclusion: The Safe Space As Personal Remember... we ALL have our safe spaces! We just need to look within ourselves and define what would our own safe space would entail! The pursuit of success often requires sacrifice! By choosing to share my thoughts and ideas publicly, I have willingly exposed myself to criticism and potential backlash. However, I am determined to mentally survive and to continue to pursue my goals, regardless of the challenges I may face. With my biggest being WORLD RECTIFICATION using philosophy! Per this lofty ambition of mine, I do not seek refuge in safe spaces. Instead, I find my "safe space" in researching ideas, experimenting with them and examining a diverse range of perspectives, both online and offline. That's my safe space... What... what would be yours?

(Disclaimer: No former knowledge of video games is required at all. See this specific genre, as applicable to real life, as well: Both literally and philosophically. No knowledge of martial arts is needed, either). (Philosocom's Directory on Peace) (Disclaimer 2: No Tekken Force members were harmed in the making of this article). (Philosocom's Directory on Tekken) Article Synopsis by Ms. Gabbi Grace The article "How Tekken Made Me More Serene (And My Quest For Greater Peace)" explores how playing a violent video game, despite its aggressive gameplay and ruthless characters, has paradoxically contributed to Mr. Tomasio's personal growth and pursuit of inner peace. He successfully makes a case that Tekken, despite its dark nature, serves as a metaphor for real-life struggles and the importance of emotional control, stoicism , and strategic thinking. The article effectively draws parallels between the competitive, unforgiving world of Tekken and real-life challenges, blending video game mechanics with philosophical reflections, particularly stoicism. The notion that controlling one's emotions and approaching life with a calculated, composed mindset is valuable advice that resonates well beyond gaming. The engaging narrative, thanks to the author's personal journey through Tekken and how it shaped their understanding of emotional regulation, gives the piece a relatable and human touch. The article skillfully uses Tekken as a metaphor for life, illustrating how the lessons learned from the game—strategic thinking, emotional control, learning from losses —are applicable to broader life experiences. This metaphor allows the reader to see video games not just as entertainment but as tools for self-reflection and growth. The article does not glamorize violence but rather critiques the harshness of Tekken's world while highlighting the importance of restraint and self-control. The nuanced perspective on competition, emotional regulation, and personal growth makes the piece thoughtful and reflective rather than purely celebratory of the game's violence. (Background music) ************** The Iron Fist and the Unforgiving Climb to Victory A fighting game, like Tekken, is essentially a virtual simulator between at least two players, and the goal is to defeat the opponent and win the match. Some of you might think this is simple, but that's actually far from the truth. The truth is, that a good fighting game, requires much study of the depths of its characters... Move-sets, risks and rewards, and so on. I will not delve on the technicalities too much, so do not worry; the point is the wisdom behind it. The technicalities are but the means, not the end. The Kli, and not the Tochen. The Tekken games... Are probably the most sociopathic fighting games out there, even whenever an exciting theme is played. The main characters are the most cold-hearted I've ever seen, willing to kill their own family members, just to be victorious over them, or to extract revenge. There is little emotion among Tekken's strongest fighters, known as the Mishimas. Almost all of the primary characters, are evil and of few words, by default. That's because the world of martial arts in that fiction, is unforgiving, and merciless. In such a world you do not survive by showing compassion but by conquering your enemies in combat. Ruthlessly. Methodologically. Victory is but proof of dominance over your opponents. And the more you will dominate, the stronger you can be considered as a fighter. For the battles in Tekken games are divided by ranks. And these ranks determine your difficulty. Lose too much, and you will be put in your place, literally, by demotion. Prove yourself worthy, and you will raise up in the ranks. Because your rank determines your position, your place in a bigger heirarchy. And it is only possible to rise up by the survival of the fittest. -- Fit for battle. Be too unfit in this eternal struggle for dominance, and you will be left behind, by your own lack of merit. For the world of Tekken is one of ruthless meritocracy. ( I am a 25th Dan -- A " Revered Ruler ", with a character called Miguel ). There is no compassion, there is no empathy. It's whether you beat the opponent, or not, and on skill and technique alone, your restraint and strength is measured. The rest does not matter a lot. It can remind one, how cruel the real world can be, and furthermore, how realistic it can sometimes be, to expect no sympathy from anyone. Tekken as a Mirror to Our Competitive World For this capitalist world is also one of indefinite competition to the top . And that goes for Philosocom as well, in the niche of blogging. Only the most "powerful" blog will be dominant over others, and thus, attain success accordingly. "Power" in such context is your ability to surpass your competitors, and Tekken, like in life, is a competition for supremacy. Because only those who are at the top, get to reap the most benefit. Money, resources, menpower, reputation. Such things are examples of said "power". The power that, in the reality outside our minds, doesn't really exist. And for that, you need to be calculated. You need to plan your moves carefully. Like in a Tekken match, like in real life. To be a powerful Tekken player, you shouldn't to get too excited, as that can make you too distracted; Intense emotion can blind you, for it can bias your perception. Bias can be used against you. Be too distracted, you can make horrible mistakes, which will mark your defeat. No, the purpose is to try and to be as stoic as possible, so you will be able to be emotionally steady. Thus, you can increase your chances of winning against the opponent. A calculated fighter is a smart one. Rush too much and you will be punished for your mistakes. Yes, it appears that what we interpret as Stoic philosophy, or the art of restraining emotion while feeling pain, is something that is delightfully expressed in the Tekken games. No matter how victorious you were, a single moment of over-emotion, can doom your success for the reminder of the match's round. On the other hand, if you are willing to be intuitive, but calculated enough, you can increase your chances of victory. Even if the opponent beats you up severely, giving in to the frustration, will not do much, when it can be your own disadvantage. Do not act like the Sith. Giving in to your anger means letting your anger govern you. Tekken's Lessons in Emotional Control I've been playing fighting games since I was a child. Ironically, I only now understand, that randomly mashing buttons, can only be one's own undoing during battle. Why? Because the opponent, be it a person or a computer, can detect a chink of weakness while you're in your fury of fists and kicks. Should they "aim" at that chink with an attack of their own they can make the less Stoic, even less Stoic, thus being on top, even more. Therefore -- display weakness, and you allow an enemy an opportunity that can go against you. Gather and display strength instead, and you will make others respect you, instead of pitying you or exploiting you for their own adventage. Tekken has taught me, that giving too much to emotion, isn't always wise. Emotion like fury. The furious fighter may be dangerous, but they lack focus, and they might not reconsider the world around them. They are impatient and desperate, but that won't necessarily make them advance in their quest for victory. Sometimes, the opposite is true. On the other hand, be too calm, and you might underestimate the true power of your opponent. Some stress can, in fact, help you focus. Emotion isn't necessarily on-par with reality. If you are furious over something or someone, giving in to fury, won't necessarily help you, even if IT FEELS that it will. In a sense, an emotion can also delude, if it makes one think that it helps them, when it doesn't. Yes, it seems that emotions can certainly blind... It is one of the reasons people may need medication, so the intensity of the emotion, will decrease significantly. I hope one day to rid myself of psychiatric drugs, without having an alternative. If I can teach myself, through technical games like Tekken, how to calm my mind, without depending on pills, then maybe I'll be able to at least reduce the prescription, until it will vanish for good. The irony in this is, that I was furious by Tekken, as well, throughout the years. However, I learned to overcome it, by refusing the temptation to be enraged, through logical reasoning. To win, one must be prepared; To win, one shouldn't whine on his or her misfortune. If they consider their misfortune, then they better find at least a single solution, for remedy. When they constantly lose, whether in games or in life, they need to grow up and not to lament too much on their misfortune, when they can be more practical instead, and solve their problems. The needs stems from survival itself. From not letting dysfunctional emotions stand in your way. It is only through training, and through the philosophy of the iron fist, when one will achieve victory. "Tekken" means "Iron Fist" in Japanese, and in general, that is the term for an oppressive rule. In such games, one is better to oppress oneself through restraint, before oppressing others through combat. Is it toxic? Is it insensitive? Maybe, but in a violent encounter, winning should get the higher priority, even if one is to face defeat. Such is violence: Cruel, ruthless, and, sometimes, Stoic. And the wisdom of this violence can be applied to any other conflict in life. Even when there are no weapons or fists involved. But competition, but struggle. Occasionally, that "winning" is just getting to see tomorrow. Thus, it's only natural, that some, may be more aggressive than others, in behaviour. Perhaps it can be a product of self-preservation? And in the way for our success and victory, many opponents might stand. Intentional or otherwise. It is surprising to see how a difficult and frustrating activity, can soothe one's mind, when a motive for greater benefit, is at hand. Because in Tekken, at least, conflict is but a means to an end. Means to power. And the reserved person uses his reserves well for that endeavor, for they are wise enough to not waste them, and serene enough, to not lose said reserves. Energies and other resources, necessary to get things done. Conclusion: Tekken As a Metaphor For Life's Struggles I argue that the fighting games of Tekken offer a surprising lens through which to view real-life challenges. Here are the key takeaways: Tekken teaches emotional control: True strength lies in mastering your emotions, not succumbing to rage . Like a skilled Tekken player, remaining calm and calculated increases your chances of success. Life is a competition : The world, like Tekken, is a competitive arena. Success requires strategic thinking and a constant drive to improve. Stoicism is key : Just as excessive emotions can be detrimental in Tekken, unrestrained feelings can hinder you in life. A Stoic approach, emphasizing reason and emotional control, is more effective. Learn from losses: Don't dwell on defeat. Often, the path to victory is paved with the path of countless defeats. Instead, analyze your mistakes and strategize for improvement, just like you would after losing a Tekken match. See where you did wrong, and work relentlessly towards improving yourself. Competition fosters growth: The pressure to overcome opponents, both in Tekken and in life, can be a powerful motivator for self-improvement. That's the irony of finding peace through a violent game. Tekken teaches that mastering oneself is the ultimate victory. To quote Friedrich Nietzsche: “My humanity is a constant self-overcoming.”

(Background music) A long time ago, I played a most difficult and most broken fangame called Mortal Kombat Chaotic. For those of you who do not recognize this game, it can indeed be called the “Dark Souls” of Mortal Kombat, simply because of how broken and intelligent the A.I. is. It also depends on the character you are picking and fighting against, because this game also has the largest selection of characters in MK history. Now, I am not here to whine about the pain I was dealt with by the A.I. (AKA, the computer opponents I faced), nor how many times I lost even on the lowest of difficulty—“Easy 1”—but instead I would like to share with you the wisdom I have learned by playing this unique, very-challenging game of Kombat. 1. Every defeat can be utilized to get closer to victory: Even on the “Easy 1” difficulty, you are likely to be defeated numerous times by the A.I.. Nonetheless, with all of your defeats, the achievement of victory can be very, very rewarding, should you be determined enough to learn the A.I. and learn from your mistakes with each defeat you have absorbed. This is why it is, technically, good to make mistakes , as long as one learns from them enough as to not to repeat them and expect different results. 2. Every action has a reaction: The A.I. will learn the pattern of your moves and will attempt to find a counter-attack, should you use the same pattern over and over again. Further thinking is required to surpass the reactions made by your actions. Think long-term, and do not act on instinct so easily in life. Plan like a mastermind , or your actions will be likelier to backfire against you. 3. Don’t let them breathe: The “Tournament” mode of the game has a formidable, the antagonist known as Shao Kahn . That character is an absolute beast when it comes to combat; his health is really large and so are the amount of damage he can deal to you within single hits. Even an uppercut, a deadly move in the series, may only decrease a small portion of his health. However, if you are not to “let him breathe”, in a sense that you won’t let him a big-enough gap to hit you dramatically, it is preferable to resume your combos even if he defends against them. Apply this to real life when you are in an antagonistic conflict against someone, physically or literally—the more you hit them the less likely they will hit you back with a significant punch/offensive claim. (That is, of course, unless they are good in using your own hits against you). 4. Pick your fights: There are characters in this fangame that are extremely overpowered, with the most notoriously one known as Simon, that can kill his opponent with literally one hit. While there are less overpowered characters that are overpowered nonetheless, it’s preferable that you do not waste your time fighting such characters because there is very little chance that you will win. Restart the game or match and hope that you will make it. That, unfortunately, applies to real life as well—pick your fights, whether they are physical or not, because our strength is not always sufficient to prove victorious. You are not omnipotent, even if you feel like it in a megalomaniac fashion. 5. Accept pain that you currently can’t do anything about: Some opponents, especially Shao Kahn, will attempt to make you suffer by not letting you time to react to their hits. Shao Kahn especially may grab you for a few seconds, point at you and tell you that “you are nothing” as he significantly decreases your health and throws you to the floor. Because you currently can’t do anything about this mid-way, it is best to just accept the pain and attempt to avoid it in the near or far future. When this lesson is applied to real life—accept the inevitable, and hope for it to pass, no matter how long it will take. In real life, it is sometimes best to give up when you know for certain you can't do anything to change the situation. 6. Some instances may have weaknesses that can be used for your own benefit: The A.I. in the game can be very cheap, truth be told. They can uppercut you, arrive to your new location, make an uppercut again, and repeat. However, some of your opponents may have weaknesses that can be used to your own advantage. A specific character, for example, cannot be grabbed, so it would be useless to try and grab them. However, they also heal, and when the heal they can be vulnerable to a potentially-deadly attack. It is not always wrong to exploit a weakness in a situation, especially if no harm is done. If a pet, for example, is acting too wild, perhaps patting it in a very specific place they like will relax them quicker than doing anything else. And finally: 7. Check your options: Literally check your options, because the game is set to the highest difficulty, “Hard 8”, by default. Don’t be surprised if you are beaten in a series of “flawless victories” within the first few seconds if you don’t check your options. (A flawless victory is when an opponent is defeated without landing a hit) Number 7 teaches us the importance of not giving in to our Platonic impressions so easily. You might find out that your own impression of an experience can deceive you if you give in to its bias. Question it and see how the experience of the same object can be changed later on. Conclusion All of the insights here can be used in real life as well, making some video games have the potential to teach us about life, as this applies not only to simulator games . Who says we only need specific sources of learning, such as books, to become wiser? We can literally learn from anything if we pay enough attention and dedicate enough time to analyze our experiences and the content we have consumed.

(Philosocom's Directory on Power) (Background music) How Philosophers Access Power and Become Powerful A good philosopher is arguably not only one whose arguments are rational and reasonable. What makes them good is also their ability to generate and preserve power. By " power " I refer to the sociological aspect of the word: the ability to influence the world by making people do certain things, or make them avoid certain actions. And as we all know, with great power comes great responsibility. So, a good philosopher would handle their power wisely, as well. While their reliability stems from their reason, if they are public figures, their powers exceed or can exceed beyond that. In other words, public philosophers are thought leaders because of their ability to exact influence . External to logic, the philosopher has two power bases that are universal to all philosophers who were active in society (AKA, did not leave it in favor of a complete hermitage). A " power base " is simply the source your power comes from. You may find this term more common in politics , but I digress. Note : Money and other material means are irrelevant in this discussion, so I won't mention them here. They are also powerbases, but they are not necessary powerbases for all public philosophers. The powerbase of your money might as well be your wallet. The Philosopher's Power: Expertise, Respect , and the Moral Choice French and Raven discussed several power bases. What we're going to focus on, here, are two power bases: expertise and referent. The term "referent" may be a misspelling, and could have been, originally, " reverent ", which means "respected". " Referent " is a source for reference. A book can be a source one, as well. The philosopher does not need to be part of an organization in order to be in this role. They don't even need to be part of any collective, in order to be good, (AKA competent and skilled). A philosopher might as well be an outsider whose power comes from examining issues from an outsider's lens. As such, expertise and reverence are not necessarily organizational powers, even though they can be. A freelancer gains their power from being a hired expert for a job. A well-respected member of a community may be treated differently than a member who is depraved of respect, such as a petty thief. A sociologically good philosopher is one that is both an expert and is respected. In fact, these two values might as well correlate with each other in this case. Expertise is essentially the ability to apply the same knowledge, better than someone who is less-than-expert. What makes a philosopher different from a non-philosopher, is the former's ability to conclude deeper insights from the latter, when introduced to the same information. A philosopher is, more often than not, a mysterious source of wisdom. Self-proclaimed philosophers are not necessarily pretentious pseudo-intellectuals; people who think they are better than everyone else. Some of us actually commit to our self-given roles, instead, despite deviating from the intellectual norm of the academy. The Philosopher's Gambit Respect is imperative if you want your missives to be effective . Respect and admiration are not only an indication of praise. They also indicate potential for greater opportunities. Opportunities such as collaborations with others. Opportunities such as progression in your own field as a philosopher or in any other field of expertise. Being taken seriously is imperative to leave an impact . Be laughed at by people constantly , and the extent of your power might be compromised. Life is like a chess board, where your choices influence where you are in the game of life. I'm not saying that human beings deserve to be treated like pawns. I'm saying that we should consider our decisions, as they have long-term implications. Increase your expertise. Practice philosophizing whenever you can. Make people respect you for your contributions. Respecting them as well is a great start. That is the key for you to increase your power, for whatever intention you have in mind. A Call to Moral Power The morally-good philosopher, on the other hand, will seek to apply their power for the sake of good. By "good" I refer to the benefit of humanity : The reduction of unnecessary suffering in our world. To make people believe in themselves, and choose life over death, whenever they are tempted to depart from this world, willingly. To contribute and to give people new points of thought to refresh their experience and expand their horizons. This is why the expression, " with great power, comes great responsibility ", comes here as well. And as a moral being I aim to be responsible for my power and influence. For I know my words can have an effect on others. Both while I'm alive, and both after my death, when they will be succeeded. And as a morally-good philosopher, I see it a duty to bring some light into this dark world. Understanding the Impact of Influence I shed the burden of vengeance, releasing the anger tied to "Chen " . My pursuit of retribution ends here, for I choose to use my power for good, and not for external validation . Harboring resentment towards someone who hurt me with indifference is a path I will refuse to repeat myself. To succumb to such darkness would be to misuse the influence I hold. My memories of her will serve as a reminder to never become the being she was. Fortunately, the pursuit of goodness transcends the confines of religious dogma, as even atheists can be moral beings. It is, at its core, the desire to act with compassion and create a better world, regardless of one's faith. Would you agree? Those who hunger for power solely for its own sake, seeking only to accumulate more and more, are ultimately consumed by its emptiness. And as such power will still makes people feel lonely when they're at the top. For us who choose a different path, power is but a tool, a means to achieve a noble end. This applies equally to the ability to influence others. The greater the influence we wield, the greater the impact our actions have. Therefore, it is crucial to wield that influence wisely, with a guiding principle of kindness and integrity. So, let us strive to be good, not just for ourselves, but for the world we share. For this world has too much of true evil . Let us invest in compassion, in understanding , and in building a brighter future for all. May we never fall prey to the allure of darkness , but instead choose to be the light that illuminates the path forward to an age of less loneliness, and more acceptance and purposefulness. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feeback Power comes from when we act on words/intentions. You decide whether to give your words power or not. Power is another construct which only exists in people’s minds. People have power because we believe they have it. Think about it as an officer who pulls you over. His power extends to doing that and writing a ticket for violating a traffic law. People give them power because they have control over if us doing something we aren’t supposed to happens and we get caught. Their power comes from their ability to punish people for doing an action they aren’t supposed to. When you have done nothing wrong and get pulled over you will see how little of power they actually possess. They aren’t the ones telling you to drive badly.  When you realize the nature of power you realize you hold all the cards. Don’t want to get in trouble? Then don’t do something which can. You hold all the power in your life because you get to determine which actions to do.

(Background music) (Philosocom's Directory on Power) (Philosocom's Directory on Competency) Article Overview by Mr. O. C. Isaac The article "The Philosophy of The Mastermind -- How to Become One" explores the concept of masterminds, combining elements of leadership , strategy, manipulation, and existential purpose. It offers valuable insights into the mentality of masterminds. The article is well-organized, with key points clearly outlined, such as distinguishing a mastermind from a genius , the role of manipulation , and the emphasis on leadership. The interdisciplinary approach of the piece integrates philosophical concepts, especially existentialism, into its discussion of the mastermind, adding intellectual depth. The existentialist interpretation of creating meaning through planning is particularly thought-provoking. The article uses creative examples, such as Walter White from Breaking Bad , Dr. Evil, and Wile E. Coyote, to illustrate the contrast between competent and incompetent masterminds in a relatable and entertaining way. The advice to practice skills regularly and learn from failure is a practical and motivational takeaway, encouraging readers to see mastery as an ongoing process, rather than an innate quality. In conclusion, the article provides a unique and engaging look at the concept of a mastermind, blending leadership theory, philosophy, and practical advice. Its interdisciplinary approach and use of creative examples already make it a standout article. The Mastermind: Leader, Planner, and Manipulator The mastermind is a combination of a leader and a planner. Because masterminds are thinkers by nature, any philosopher who is also a talented leader can be a mastermind as well. In Hebrew, the term does not exist, and is often incorrectly translated as "genius." However, geniuses are not necessarily masterminds. They might be too incompetent and have poor leadership skills , to be considered masterminds. (A genius in mathematics , for example, won't necessarily be a mastermind. They calculate, lecture, etc., not necessarily make plans). Masterminds never work alone. In fiction , they are often depicted as working in a "back-office" or "inner sanctum" of sorts, giving orders to their subordinates. If they have no direct subordinates, they will carry out their plans through manipulation. However, a mastermind can be both a manipulator and a direct leader. Manipulation is relevant here because it is a tool that masterminds use to have power over others indirectly. They conceal their true intentions in order to achieve their goals. Power does not have to be concrete when it can be expressed through influence. Overall, A mastermind is a strategic thinker who combines leadership skills with meticulous planning. They are the architects behind complex schemes, often wielding power through influence and manipulation. Key Points: Thinker and Leader: Masterminds excel at strategizing and possess strong leadership qualities. Beyond Genius : While intelligence is important, a true mastermind goes beyond raw intellect. They need the ability to translate ideas into action. Manipulation as a Tool: Masterminds often use manipulation to achieve their goals, concealing their true intentions to influence others indirectly. Working in the Shadows: Though they may have direct subordinates, masterminds are often depicted as working behind the scenes , pulling the strings from a hidden "inner sanctum." The Architects of Influence I: Understanding the Capability Often, masterminds are criminals , but one does not need to be a criminal in order to be a mastermind (and vice versa). Heads of criminal organizations, both in fiction and non-fiction, must be good masterminds in order to survive in their business and to avoid the law. A good example for that is Walter White from "Breaking Bad". Outside of criminality, business owners , project managers, etc. can also be considered masterminds. This is especially true if they are good at their jobs. There is no mastermind who is not both a leader and a planner at the same time. Both of these skills are mental, and do not necessarily depend on the external world. In other words, if a mastermind loses all of their power and influence, they can still be considered a mastermind if they have the potential to regain those resources. The same goes for their plans, if they fail constantly. It is all, as the name suggests, within one's mind , that determines if it is capable enough, to be a mastermind. As you may clearly tell, it has nothing to do with the physical body (or at least, physical fitness/strength). A mastermind does not need to be good at what they do in order to be considered a mastermind. It's just that it is within one's best interest, that they are to be good, and to improve. You can be bad at what you do and still be considered a mastermind, as long as you practice those skills regularly. Whether or not you are good at fulfilling those roles is determined by your competence, which is evident by the success of your efforts. Incompetence does not cancel your role. Incompetent masterminds in fiction include: Dr. Evil  (Austin Powers) : This megalomaniac villain constantly dreams of world domination , yet his plans are skilless. Not killing his arch-nemesis  and relying on incompetent henchmen , Dr. Evil's schemes are guaranteed to fail. Wile E. Coyote (Looney Tunes) : The determined but perpetually frustrated coyote spends his days making elaborate contraptions to catch the Road Runner. However, his inventions backfire constantly, leaving him the one who ends up his own victim. The Architects of Influence II: Understanding the Mentality As a leader, you must make sure that your subordinates are organized in the best way possible in order to achieve the goals of the organization. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to leadership , but having charisma can help a lot in getting the most out of your followers. A charismatic individual is confident, assertive, and appealing. Charisma attracts people, and the way you behave determines your charisma. Most of us are not masterminds simply because we are not natural leaders . You can be as intelligent as possible, but without the ability to plan and delegate tasks, you cannot be a mastermind. That's why masterminds never work entirely by themselves. They need interpersonal skills that not all highly intelligent people have. And people won't necessarily become leaders through learning or experience. Without these skills, they will cooperate and lead others very poorly. Even if they are more withdrawn by nature, it is not the same for most of humanity. Leadership does not begin and end with a paycheck. It requires good social dynamics , loyalty, effective communication , and so on. I strive to implement my own vision in this world , a vision that does not necessarily exist currently. In a world that I deem meaningless by default, I seek to work and make it meaningful in the eyes of as many people as possible. Why? Because meaning can and deserves to be created, and not only found. I want people to believe in themselves! I want to inspire hope and motivation in their hearts! My power is just a means to an end. I also use it in my attempts to make philosophy not only a relevant field of study, but a profitable one. Remember, a mastermind cannot be one without at least a single plan. And plans cannot exist without a purpose or goal in mind . Therefore, every mastermind works to achieve the purpose they set out for themselves to carry. In a very partial way, every mastermind is therefore an existentialist. Because when you create a plan, you attribute meaning to reality. Otherwise, you wouldn't have come up with a plan, would you? The meaning you work for has yet to be present, hence why you work to create it. There are other proficiencies required to be a mastermind, and they depend on the niche you're in. For example, a website manager might not need military expertise, and a modern-day warlord might not need to know how to play football. Like with anything, it takes practice and is an ongoing effort to be a good mastermind . So be prepared to fail, even miserably. Suffer the consequences of your mistakes and learn from them. Learn from them so you can reduce the chances of failure in the future. Try to be creative with your plans. Don't conform to the orthodox ways of life . Limiting yourself will only hinder your plans from becoming a reality. This is one of the many reasons I'm not fond of conformity for its own sake. Don't be afraid of what others may think of you. You have a right to resist fear . If you will, you'll only harm your goals and put yourself in a corner. Instead, embrace your eccentricity as a means to an end. Remember, a mastermind tries to make whatever they have into something useful. This doesn't mean you have to see other people as tools on a chessboard, but I digress. In the end, a mastermind is a universal businessman . They seek to do anything in their power to make their dreams come true. And you can't do that without coming up with plans and making sure they work. Building Your Empire Through Collaboration Since working entirely on your own can deliver poor results, you must reach out and make connections, to increase your chance of success . Only through cooperation can the chances of your success vastly increase. And theirs too, especially if you choose to join forces under a shared goal. Make them stick with you in exchange for something valuable. Make them feel how great it is to be connected with a person such as yourself. And you'll get "bonus points" if you convince them that they won't necessarily get what they want/need without you.

Alex Mos's Synopsis "Contentism" refers to the shift in human relationships from evaluating people to judging them based on the content they create and post online. Content creation and consumption, empowered by AI technology, is one of the most growing-in-demand resources in the market today. Consumers value content but increasingly don't care for the humans who created it. The lack of connection between readers and content creators is profound in philosophy. Mentioning logical fallacies can minimize human elements, including emotions. In philosophy, emotions are a weakness and can bias perception . The solution to contentism and growing existential solitude is to appreciate humans beyond the content they provide. In extra notes, the author describes the downsides and solutions to the mental harm caused by content creation and navigating through "cancel culture's" sensitivity. (Philosocom's Directory On Emotions) (Social Media Directory) The term I would like to coin, "contentism", refers to the gradual shift in our relationships with other human beings in contemporary times. Today, anyone can be a content creator by simply posting things online. It is through the lens of the content we see on our screens that we judge and evaluate other people. This evaluation exists for two reasons: Some of us may not appreciate other human beings as more than creators, and because we lack better ways to evaluate humans in the digital world. Even by speaking, you create. Thus, your basic value in human society is significantly measured by whatever content you may be creating out of your mouth and behavior. Contentism can be seen as a contemporary variant of behaviorism , a philosophy of the mind that claims our mentality only exists in our behavior. This rationale is flawed because our true mentality can be well hidden under the guise of a behavior that indicates otherwise. The same can be argued about contentism, and even more so. After all, it is quite easier to mask and deceive behind a screen than behind your own face. In this day and age, content is king . Many of us may live for the sake of consuming content. It is, in fact, one of the most growing-in-demand resources in the market today that practically everyone can produce . Social media platforms merely cashed in on the human need to create and consume content, and earned their power and finances in accordance to the outlets they've been providing for their own gain. Their popularity essentially stems from feeding our egos through features of gratification, such as "likes" and "followers", as reward for our presence there. It is even possible to create content out of consuming it. Reaction videos are such examples. The AI revolution cashed in on that as well, by being able to generate content by demand out of prompts. The problem with contentism stems from the difficulty of connecting the human, authentic element with the desire to generate and consume content . Your social media followers may follow you not because of who you are as a human being, but because of your content . A social media follower is not necessarily a supporter of you. They are a supporter of what you produce and upload online. Hence why it is not the same as the traditional follower who is loyal to you or supports you. As such, a follower of Jesus Christ is far more loyal than a TikTok follower. I soon realized that I am basically insignificant without the generation of content. I realized that people will not care about me at all if I did not produce content, or produced that of lower quality. Parents, family and your partner may love you for simply being. Anyone else would only appreciate you by your behavior and by what you generate for others to consume. Because why would strangers care for other strangers? This world is not built on human appreciation but on sets of personalized interests. In the age of contentism, you are defined and valued by your content and not by yourself as a person. Relevance is relative . Relative to time and to the quality of product. Those who will prove their relevance by both, more than others, will also be valued and appreciated more. All in the name of two: Being liked and giving the people what they want. Those who fail in both, can easily be shoved aside to the corners of society, and live as unproductive outsiders. The reason why ad hominem is a fallacy justifies the disconnection between the human element and the element of what they produce. People are not going to care for your emotions when they read you or watch you, because you as a being are irrelevant by yourself. They will mostly if not only care for the content, for the product. If your emotions get in the way, they would either minimize the worth of your feelings or simply find other content creators who are less emotional than you. This can show how humans can care for each other very little, when what connects between them is the content and nothing more. This is especially true in philosophy because logic can be a very cold , relentless tool, despite how essential it is. It's quite hard to be a good philosopher when you're constantly and impractically offended by reasonable counter-arguments. Technically, the mentioning of logical fallacies can be used to minimize the human element, and that includes their emotions. The Nirvana fallacy may discard your hopes for a better future. Whataboutism may discard a potential subtext where you are expressing your hurt feelings. Arguments from anecdotal evidence may discard the person's experience entirely only because their experience is insufficient for the argument to be made publicly. (Note: One of the reasons I've been revamping my articles a lot is to eliminate versions of articles that were purely written from anecdotal experience, which is of course fallacious). The solution to the contentist approach to human beings is to regard human beings as existing beyond the content they provide , and to appreciate humans in general as such. This can do good for the moral goal to decrease unnecessary suffering in this world, by letting people know that they matter despite their behavior and what else they express Until then, do remember that emotions are a form of weakness , especially in the cold field of philosophy. Your emotions don't matter much when you make an argument because it does not matter what the arguments you make, make you feel. In addition, emotions can bias your perception to the point of misleading others without intention, by minimizing opposing evidence, or by discarding it altogether. We may live to believe that expressing emotion is something negative, especially as men, unfortunately. As such, our love and appreciation from this world may be conditioned by our ability to repress emotion in the name of the task at hand. I wouldn't be surprised if the same is also applicable to women, even if not as much. To be a better philosopher.... I killed much of my emotions . They were weighing me down, they were in the way. I slowly turned from an emotional being to a cold, calculated thinker who rarely feels emotion. Yes, it is possible to get rid of emotions . In reality, I feel through the senses, not through the "heart". It was necessary to rid much of it to survive and thrive in this field, as well as to endure the contentist world we all live in. Some may appreciate me as a person, but let's be more honest, okay? Without my writings I would've been just another stranger to many of you Would you really care for me, then? Probably not. It's one of the things that nurture a growing age of solitude, even when you are in a physical company. Existential solitude ... might as well only be solved if we cared about each other more as people and less as content providers. And that is the dark side of Bill Gates' quote of "Content is King". Humans are no longer the kings of Earth. Content is . And that is exactly why the A.I content revolution could be a threat to many. That threat is one that isn't only on friends but also on partners. In the absence of human appreciation, we may only appreciate whatever content we consume and like. Nothing. More. Feel free to admit the truth , even between the halls of your own mind. Admit the truth, and Hail Philosocom . Extra notes I: Mental Harm and Its Solutions Content creation, while capable of growing your recognition , can definitely have some downsides for your mental well-being. Here are some of the common dangers: The Comparison Trap: Social media is full of perfectly curated feeds for our own addictive amusemen t. It's easy to constantly compare your work to others, leading to feelings of inadequacy and hindering creativity by feeling unworthy in relation. It's solved by working hard on your craft and by setting goals that can be accomplished within your lifetime. Pressure to Perform: Platforms often prioritize content with high engagement, creating pressure to constantly making out ideas and chase trends. This relentless demand can lead to burnout and ruin creative flow. This can be solved by creating your own platform and making it attractive enough for people to not only visit but stay in it. Given the competition , this is no easy feat, and one I'm trying to do with Philosocom. Obsessive Validation Seeking : Likes, comments and follower counts can become addictive, turning into a quest for external validation. Basing self-worth on these metrics can be dangerous and lead to anxiety. Like with body image , however, it is solved psychologically, not statistically. Cyber aggression : Content creators are unfortunately exposed to a lot of negativity online, from rude comments to full-blown harassment. This can be emotionally damaging and affect mental health if we choose to remain highly sensitive and not work on ourselves to become tougher. Extra notes II: Dealing With Cancel Culture's Sensitivity In the age of cancel culture, content creation can backfire in a number of ways, potentially leading to social rejection, damaged reputation , and even career predicaments. Here's how: Unearthed Controversial Past Posts: Social media posts from years ago, made with a different perspective or humor, can be found online and be used to paint you in a negative light with the use of rhetoric that takes advantage of people's biased thinking. Misinterpreted Content: By clipping or quoting specific things you said, your words can be taken out of context and could be taken out of context and misunderstood, leading to accusations and backlash. It's your job to protect your reputation by properly explaining all that needs to be explained. Offending a Particular Group: Even if unintentional, your content might offend a certain group of people, triggering outrage and potentially harming your reputation. This can be avoided by avoiding any kind of discriminatory attitude, based on race , gender and so on. Not doing so can eliminate wide portions of people from reading or listening to what you have to say. Cancel Culture Pile-on: Once the cancel culture snowball starts rolling, it can be difficult to stop. A minor misstep can snowball into a full-blown online attack. You might want to study other content creators and their downfall. Creators like Onision can teach us adults to stay away from minors. Here are some tips to navigate this tricky landscape: Be mindful of what you post: Consider the potential long-term implications of your content before publishing. Remember that even if you remove a content piece, it might be saved and be used against you. Thinking like a competent villain could help you . Avoid sensitive topics: If unsure about a topic, it's best to not act on petty emotion, and choose a topic with a far less risk of damaging your public persona. Be respectful and inclusive: Avoid stereotypes, generalizations, and humor that could be offensive to specific groups of people. Take responsibility for your content: If something you posted causes offense, apologize sincerely. Fail to apologize that way and you can only make things bad for yourself. A case example is Will Smith's apology, which is considered dishonest by some .

(Click here for Philosocom's Escapist-Related Directory) (Background music) Alex Mos's Summary "Whataboutism" is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's argument by introducing a similar but irrelevant issue to the discussion. Recognizing this weak defense and communicating purposefully is essential. Developing mental resilience to criticism and accusations is vital to engage in constructive dialogue effectively. We should approach a discussion as a challenge, not an attack. If we are wrong, we must admit it and try to fix our flaws to improve. A fallacy derived from whateboutism can be false equivalence. It occurs when two things are presented as equivalent but differ significantly. Exchanging ideas productively requires overcoming sensitivities ; a logical approach is critical to a moral society. Introduction: Why Fallacies Are Important to Consider and Avoid For those new to philosophy, a logical fallacy is an error in one's reasoning, a flaw in our thinking. Philosophy equips us to identify these fallacies, both in ourselves and others, ultimately preventing us from reaching incorrect conclusions. The point of avoiding incorrect conclusions is to improve our understanding of reality, and avoiding falling into delusions that can have practical implications, such as: A lack of clear communication . A perspective on reality that does not match reality. Being more prone to deception by those who use these fallacies against us or to manipulate us. The logic is straightforward: The fewer fallacies we have, the more likely we are to reach sound conclusions, and reduce our delusional thoughts towards reality. Imagine trying to understand reality with faulty thinking as our tool. How can we expect to recognize truth if our very ability to reason is compromised? Experience is valuable, of course, but true understanding hinges on the ability to think rationally, and understanding is a skill that can be improved. Consider this analogy: experience might allow you to fix a flat tire based on trial and error. But with a basic understanding of mechanics, you can not only fix the flat, but also prevent future ones. Philosophy offers a similar toolkit for navigating the complexities of thought. Onward: Dismantling the "What About" Tactic Let's delve into a tactic commonly employed in arguments: " whataboutism ." This strategy, built from the simple phrase "what about," involves deflecting a question by introducing a similar but irrelevant issue to the discussion at hand. The fallacy lies in avoiding the original question by pointing fingers at a supposed hypocrisy. It's a weak defense, essentially accusing the other party of the same issue you face. Here's why it's problematic: Distraction: Whataboutism steers the conversation away from the core issue, preventing a meaningful resolution. Hypocrisy Defense: It can be used to deflect blame, but true accountability involves addressing the problem directly. When normalized, whataboutism justifies enabling the very things we condemn as a way to "protect ourselves" from accusations. Fighting Instead of Discussing: Discussion can be used to create a meaningful exchange of ideas that could also synthesize new ideas. However, the need to deflect questions instead of addressing them could lead to a heated fight between two opponents instead of a peaceful exchange. Consider a noisy neighbor. If you complain, they might deflect by claiming you're noisy too. This doesn't solve the problem; it creates an excuse to avoid responsibility. This tactic has a long history, with roots in the Latin phrase " tu quoque " (you also) and its Hebrew equivalent "Gam Ata" (so do you). These expressions highlight the fallacy's core issue: it's a weak defense mechanism built on hypocrisy. Whataboutism, also known as deflection, is a frustrating tactic that hinders productive dialogue. By recognizing it and focusing on direct, honest communication, we can navigate conversations with greater clarity and purpose. Doing so can even maintain our peace with other people, and avoid further stress or outright reduce it. Why Dodging the Issue Makes Us Weaker Thinkers If we don't like someone or even their own actions, why bother following their example? Wouldn't we want to be better than them, instead? If someone hits you and you hit them back, just because they hit you, whataboutism's logic is not only a fallacy but immoral. It can enable physical violence even if we dislike it ourselves. A good thinker avoids distractions and tackles the relevant question head-on. In contentist theory , one of the reasons emotions are weakness is because a lack of resilience makes us be over-defensive and over-protective, seeing others as a threat that "attacks" us. This is not mentally healthy nor a logical perspective. And as agreed, whataboutism is a defense mechanism . It may solve petty fights, but it won't solve the root problem: The need to get mentally stronger is to not see people, and their words and their accusations, as a threat on our safety. Treating content like a butcher can help. Not all questions deserve our time, but dodging valid inquiries simply due to discomfort hinders progress towards a practical resolution. Getting into verbal fights with people is impractical because that's how you burn your "bridges" with them. And that can involve anyone, from family to friends. As such, we better overcome our anxieties, examine our emotional weaknesses, and try to solve them, before even exchanging ideas with other people. Once we work on ourselves we can better manage with other people, leading to greater peace. Politicians often employ whataboutism to avoid addressing pressing issues. These "political answers" are essentially non-answers, a tactic to dodge accountability and potential future criticism. It's unsettling to see such a tactic normalized by figures in power, as it is not the professional way to face, specifically, questions that rightfully criticize you. Confronting Issues Head-On: A Sign of Strength and Progress To avoid this fallacy, address the issue directly. Don't shift blame. A courageous approach is key. Courage will allow you to view a discussion as a challenge, and not as an "attack" that seeks to make you feel "canceled". Thus, a more ethical approach can actually make your thinking more logical, which further highlights the connection between ethics and logic. Of course, you can address an issue of pretentiousness after providing a proper response. It's not about silencing your voice , but ensuring "whataboutism" doesn't derail the conversation after you've already provided a logical answer. Also, remember that sometimes we are proven wrong , and in many cases it's not actually that bad as our emotions may tell us. If we want to improve ourselves we need to admit we aren't always right, that we have flaws that can be fixed, and that's okay. If anything, we can use accusations not for derailing discussions, but to understand our faults and think of ways to fix them. This is called subverting our own expectations. Train on this and you can turn anything into a desired opportunity! Bonus: The False Equivalence of Capital Punishment The death penalty sparks heated debate. Some argue that a state taking a life makes it no different from a murderer. Let's explore this reasoning, which can actually stem from whataboutism. The argument that a state executing a murderer makes it a murderer itself commits the fallacy of false equivalence. This fallacy occurs when two things are presented as equivalent despite significant differences. It stems from whataboutism when it occurs from deflecting the other person's argument, in a way that's not even a proper deflection (AKA, claiming that the other person did the exact same thing). Arguably, the more fallacies we commit, the worse our understanding of the other person can become, thus worsening our relationship with them. How come? It has the potential, for example, to view them in a more negative way than they actually are, leading to an un-appropriate understanding of them ( Leading to aimless rivalries with people ). Here's why the comparison, in this case, is flawed: Legality: The state acts within a legal framework, with due process and potential for appeal s . Murder is a deliberate, illegal act that won't necessarily have any potential for appeals (especially if the murderer is a paid hitman) . Motivation: Executions aim to deliver justice and deter " particularly serious types of murder ". Murder is driven by malice or other negative emotions, or financial gain, as realistically presented by Murder Inc ., a former crime enforcement division in the U.S who killed for pay. Context: Those who support political representatives that advocate for capital punishment, indirectly support capital punishment. However, they won't necessarily support murder, nor murder themselves. This shows that although the same deed of taking a life is the same, it's context-dependent. When something is context dependent, it proves that it's not always wise to deal in absolutes. A nation with a history of violence may need to address that act before supporting capital punishment in general. That's because answering violence with violence is not always the right nor logical answer (as presented by whataboutism, which enables the very thing we condemn). Conclusion: Sharpening Your Thinking for a Just Society Philosophy equips us with the tools to think critically and have more productive conversations. By recognizing fallacies like "whataboutism" and false equivalence, we can avoid misleading arguments and reach sounder conclusions. The death penalty debate exemplifies this. Understanding the differences between state-sanctioned executions and murder helps us move beyond false equivalences and have a greater nuanced conversations regarding ethics. On the larger scale, such conversations, when recorded and distributed, influence other people's thoughts as well. As such, as a branch in philosophy, ethics hold a vast potential that could influence the life of many. Having a brighter understanding of logic in general can therefore improve that influence for the greater good. Ultimately, we have the potential to create a just society through learning from each other and from developing our moral reasoning, which stems from logic and thus, does not exist in a vacuum. This requires a thoughtful approach, and while some of you may disagree, it also requires overcoming our emotional weaknesses. Looking at the larger context, and considering long-term results, can help us understand not only the individual but also the collective importance of overcoming our sensitivities. The development of an "emotioncracy" , after all, can deter us from having a practical exchange of ideas, and thus, deter us from understanding the truth.

(Directory On Dreams) (Background music) The Positive Side of Dysfunctional Behavior - A Dream Case Study In this article, I would like to share some food for thought I have obtained thanks to a dream I had. The Price of Harmony Have you ever found yourself being scolded for doing something, not even maliciously, by the External World? Have you ever been told there are things you shouldn't do because they, technically, disrupt the harmony of a place or a situation? In the mentioned dream, I was a kid that was sent, from time to time, to a luxurious social club for kids. The club itself was, in fact, a mansion in a large grassland area, with a view of the ocean. The mansion itself was large as well, and the environment that surrounded it was silent and peaceful. This peaceful setting, however, wasn't as promising as it appeared. One day, during a meeting with the other kids, one of them called me "stupid" in front of everyone. This triggered a surge of anger within me. My autistic mind, was too explosive and sensitive back then, to accept that reality . I reacted poorly, yelling and becoming visibly agitated and distressed. Instead of acknowledging the provocation, and understand the root behind my reaction, the club's authority placed the blame on me. They claimed my reaction, an anxious response to being belittled, was disruptive and made everyone uncomfortable. They didn't acknowledged the fact that it all stemmed from me being uncomfortable in the first place, and that I couldn't hold this discomfort within me. They fail to understand how I process the world around me, nor they cared that it is something to be studied and recognized, not be left in darkness. For lonely people experience the world differently from others for they process it differently. I will not express in this article how oppressive I view society as. School at the time felt like me being in a dystopian city-state. What point is there in spending time and resources on people who have no desire nurture a framework based on the greater understanding of all people involved? Frustrated and unwilling to conform to their non-inclusive views of "harmony," I quit the club without a second thought, knowing I had better things to do with my time. As I left, an unsettling discovery awaited me. This seemingly peaceful haven harbored a dark secret – a private army with tanks and soldiers clad in pink and black uniforms were stationary across the premises. This image served as a contrast to the club's outward facade of tranquility. Perhaps that place is tranquill for most people, but I experienced it as differently. As grim, and as a place where my pecuilar way of seeing the world is unwelcomed. Since my mentality is here to stay, there's no point for institutions to contain me, whether or not they understand it themselves. For I by default experience the world for its unwillingness to understand different minds, nor understand how they work. The belief that it understands only promotes loneliness, embedded in social interactions that have no interest in seeing who you are, preferring a masked version of yourself instead. My mother in the dream, while disappointed in my sudden exit, ultimately understood. She understood there as she's capable of understanding in real life through my DNA . What ruins intuition is complete reliance on it, hence why intuition alone is not enough. We must see the children for who they are, or we'll risk making them lonely than they already are. The dream seems to suggest that the membership fee, both financial and emotional, was simply too high a price to pay for a place that prioritized harmony caused by forced calmness over genuine understanding. That's why there are different qualities of social harmony preservation, some better than others. Rebellion and its Lessons The dream of the exclusive children's club with its dark secret revealed a lot about navigating social expectations and staying true to yourself. Here's what my subconscious revealed: 1. Dysfunction Can Be a Defense Mechanism: The initial rage I felt at being called "stupid" was a natural response to an insult, but only natural to unique people like me. While my outburst may not have been ideal, it was my way of protecting myself from the emotional assault I experienced, before I died inside . In some situations, pushing back against a system that seeks to suppress your authentic self can be a form of self-preservation. As such, rage has its own practicality . 2. Unanswered Questions Can Be Warning Signs: The private army was a blatant red flag. The dissonance between the club's peaceful facade and its hidden military force hinted at a deeper darkness, covered by the delusion of the first impression bias . Choosing to walk away, even without a full understanding of the situation, allowed me to avoid potential harm or submission to an opposing force. 3. Trust Your Judgment, Even When It's Unconventional: The club prioritized a curated "harmony" over individual expression. While their rules may have seemed logical to them, logic is to be expanded using the study of other minds, who naturally see the world a differentway. It's crucial to weigh societal expectations against your own values and act accordingly, with or without the validation of those who refuse to question their methods. Your actions don't always have to be approved, especially by those who merely think they understand properly. 4. Respect for Individuality is Crucial: My "positive side of dysfunctional behavior," as some might perceive it, stemmed from my unique perspective. The dream highlighted the importance of tolerance for diverse ways of thinking and reacting, even if they differ from the norm. What makes the norm anti-humanist in nature lies in its refusal to question its own morality and logic, thus closing itself from study that could improve it for greater inclusion of diverse people. 5. Asserting Your Rights is Essential: While the dream world didn't show acceptance from the club, it underscored the fundamental human rights of protest, expression, and living by your own moral code . Even if these rights aren't always granted, they remain invaluable and should be fiercely defended. We shouldn't succumb to the victim's mentality. Doing so would just enable the very same systems we are oppose to for opposing us. Instead, we should work to change them, either from outside or from within, or retire from them in the name of our mental survival . Conclusion The dream of the exclusive children's club can remind us that sometimes, the most valuable lessons come from rejecting conformity, and not using its benefits by being a part of it. It's okay to question the status quo, prioritize your well-being, and assert your right to be yourself, even if it unsettles others. While striving for harmony is important, it shouldn't come at the cost of sacrificing your authenticity or ignoring potential dangers. Use your best judgment to navigate the complexities of the world around you. But do not settle with that skills current proportions, or you might be no better than the non-studious norms. Develop your critical thinking skills, so relying on those who refuse to understand you, would decrease.

Listen to me, the disapproval of cowards is praise to the brave. Your name will be written in glory when wizards rule the world. -- Gellert Grindelwald (Philosocom Video Game Subcategory Directory) ( Philosocom Directory on Fear ) The "Cowed" Case -- Overcoming Fear (Note: This is a special piece that will not be renovated to be kept in the present day, and will not be updated in information, in order to preserve some of the past. Past I can reflect on. I am not keen on forgetting the past. The past can help us forge a better future .   More on my philosophy on the past has been written). (Background music) In one of the games I've been playing, where the multiplayer feature is unavoidable, I was minding my own business when another player approached me. Occupied with other things, I barely noticed them, and when I returned to playing the game, that player believed I was running away from him. The player, possibly a toxic kid, called me a " coward " for leaving their presence. For some reason, he also called me "gay", a false and baseless claim. In such games where I have to be online, I just prefer to mind my own business and not talk to anyone, especially when I can play these games alone. Sometimes people approach me and ask me to join their in-game organizations, otherwise known as guilds, but I just decline and fly solo. The appeal in such games is that they usually are free to play, so even if you can pay for things, you don't actually have to buy the game. This, in theory, is a good business method, because it can attract just about anyone, just like the fact that this very site is free for you too. It is a good thing that free games are available because it does not create inequality between those who can afford the product and those who cannot. I enjoy free games. An important question came to mind in this anecdote. Even if I was not distracted when this happened, I would have ignored this player anyway, due to my philosophy of playing alone. That means, the counter-argument of distraction is invalid. Thus, was that player right? In other words, is wanting to play alone, in order to have peace of mind, necessarily a cowardly policy? I have played this genre of games with other people before, so I already know the experience of interacting with other players. I am not shy anymore, but I still don't see the reason to make the extra effort to talk with strangers, when I can "pretend" that the game I'm playing is for single players. For me, the other players in the background are just that: background characters, even if they are controlled by real people behind a screen. Playing together can help progress one in certain games, and in other games, it's even imperative due to the benefits. However, more benefit does not equal to necessity. Therefore, I could have replied to them, but I saw no need to, and even after their insult, I just pretended they did not exist. It's not also because I wanted them gone, but also because getting into conflicts, especially with potential children, are a waste of time. It doesn't contribute in any way whatsoever, and it is true especially when conflicts lead to stress and frustration. The internet can be a very toxic place, and indeed, that game is technically a part of it. It's virtual, not private, and online. The virtual world can easily make many people desire to be toxic, because they are safer behind a computer, and not in front of a person. Because of that, the danger of retribution is significantly reduced, especially when your identity is hidden by a persona such as a username and a character. This even pushes further the possibility of being more audacious, even if it makes the victim of the audacity to suffer as a result. Some people don't hesitate to act like jerks, even to the point of harassing and bullying, when online. It seems like, no matter how many of their victims might kill themselves, they wouldn't care less, in the absence of awareness. This creates the need to compromise in the hearts of those who just want further peace in their lives. People like me. The fact that I ignore people in online games, is technically a compromise, as playing together with them could potentially give me greater benefit in the game itself, even though it isn't always the case. Even though I don't like compromises, it is at times inevitable for solving problems. The reaction of others to your presence might not be under your direct control, but you can always ignore them or minimize their worth. The problem with compromises, however, is that they could serve as an indication for cowardice, or at least, create the impression of it. Nonetheless, compromises and cowardice are not mutually inclusive, necessarily . That's because when you are in a wheelchair, for example, and can't walk the stairs, you have to compromise by using other means of navigation. The fact that some people are in wheelchairs, does not make them cowards, obviously. Then, the question remains: is the need for serenity a cowardly thing? What is serenity, at all? Serenity is best defined by what it does not have: stress, struggle, anxiety, and so on. Those who truly have peace of mind are relaxed and not anxious. Therefore, serenity could be defined as the utter lack of anything that is opposite to it. It only makes sense, then that some of us want to just live in peace. And avoid conflict, especially if infantile. Avoiding toxic behavior online does not make you a coward at all times, then. And yet, if you are not doing what you are expected to do during a group effort, then you are likely to be ridiculed and insulted by the rest of the team. I once chose a role in a group activity that required a specific thing to do, which I was not aware of. When the activity began and I screwed up, the group's leader was extremely mad at me, calling me an imbecile and other words unworthy of this site's dignity. Obviously, losing shouldn't always be taken so harshly, but some people are like that. Some people just do not care. Would you want to be bullied in a game for making a mistake, or even worse, for existing a certain way? No, and if I could, I would remove all the players from the server and just play on my own, or simply be a "ghost" and not appear to others. After all, it's just a game, and I'm here to entertain myself. I don't need the stress and the conflict. Grow up.

(Philosocom's Directory on Evil) (Background music) The Elusive Truth of Evil: Motive, Justification, and the Blurred Lines of Morality As some of you may have already noticed based on my earlier work , Polarity of Evil is a fascinating concept when applied to non-fiction. The more realistically complex an issue gets, the more one realizes that people very rarely use plain evil as the justification for their actions. The most opposite figure in this regard is the Joker from the DC Universe franchise . He serves as an example of pure, motiveless evil, which is in contrast to the real world where everyone operates with some underlying reason, however warped it may appear. This blurring of lines is crucial. Because it is so easy for us humans to disagree with one another, any controversial act, even a crime, could be seen as logically justified by a few, while the attempt to condemn or stop it could be seen as the true evil (like drinking alcohol at a 1920's speakeasy during the prohibition era) . This leaves us with a paradox: The only act that cannot be judged as evil is one that is without any motive whatsoever. Without motive, it would be impossible to logically conclude the true intention of one's deeds. This is because evil without an intention that cannot be seen as wrong, cannot technically be evil, even in an existence where everything has a reason. Thus, you can't really be evil if you don't intend to be (hence the existence of accidents and misfortune caused by innocence). This complexity brings to light the power dynamics inherent in our interpretations of good and evil. The cliché expression, "might makes right," reflects this truth. The entity or ideology with the most physical power is the one more likely to receive the most agreements, and thus, be seen as justified . Likewise, the notion of democracy as the most preferred regime of any nation was not always regarded as such. In fact, Socrates disagreed with its competency, believing that the people are not always capable of deciding the best leadership for their country. Challenging Perspectives: The Evolving Notions of Good and Evil Across Time and Cultures Mind you, most of humanity's history has been filled with absolute monarchies and other forms of totalitarian governments ( due to fear from external, "barbarian threats", for example ), where it was "okay" to execute someone for treason or any reason the ruler believed to be justified. Unless the population was happy with what they got, your average pre-modern regime remained under the same ruler for as long as they survived before either getting killed, dying of old age, being sent to exile, and so on. What if Socrates wrote about his disbelief in democracy on Twitter? Surely, he would get a lot of hate from the world, but if your average Athenian or any other native to the time Socrates lived in heard his words, chances are they would logically agree with him. They would not shame him in the town square like some contemporary people might do nowadays on such media. What if we lived in an alternative universe where communism reigned supreme as most of the world's countries' political ideology? For example, what if the Soviet Union won the Cold War, and many countries fell to the influence of communism? Surely in such a universe, the notion of democracy would be seen as less desirable, or even as evil, if the propaganda did its job . In such a world, assuming there would be social media, expressing your thoughts in deep favor of democracy would get you shamed as well by that network's users, if not get you killed for treason, and few would protest on your behalf due to fear from being executed themselves. I t is why courage is capable of oppressing tyranny itself, and reshaping the moral, subjective reality of countless citizens. Reflection on Norms, Perspectives, and Globalization What I'm saying is that, in some way, the dictating norms of what we should think and believe, could be evil to others as they are seen as good to us. Even in a world that is mostly ruled by liberal democracies , if someone from the far past would hear about such a regime, which we see as good and ideal, they may comment very negatively about our world's state of affairs, due to it being so democratic. To put it even simpler, those who do or think for the sake of evil are extremely few ; the vast majority of us do and think what we believe to be good, even if someone may believe it to be evil. This is how mind-blocking our norms can be, because should someone criticize our thoughts and/or endeavors to be evil, what are the odds that we will genuinely agree with them and confess we're evil, while liking it? Perhaps some will do it out of mockery towards that critic, but in the end, extremely few are the people who believe in evil or genuinely want to be evil, whether or not evil has an objective definition that most, if not all, would agree with. Even Hitler would not tell you that he's the personification of evil, even though he appears that way very much in the eyes of many; he would claim, after all, that he was a vegetarian. Surely an evil person won't eat innocent animals? As many of us do on a regular basis? You may use moral vegetarianism as a front for your other moral depravities. That is known as a red herring fallcy. Perhaps it is only when the world becomes fully globalized, AKA, if a single or a coalition of cultures will "conquer" the world's population, under a universal culture , that we will be able to optimally determine, at least during that "conquest," what is actually good and what is actually evil. Such "conquering" has been partially implemented already—murder and other crimes have become almost entirely illegal over our world's history, as it's logical that we shouldn't murder. And yet, medieval regent who mistreated his wife would not receive the same negative reception as a contemporary one who would do just that. Imagine what would happen if your country's leader were accused of a criminal act today, compared to yourself. That politician can affect the laws while you cannot , giving him or her advantage over how justice is enforced (if at all). Your far-away ancestor, however, might not even really care and return to their work in defeatist apathy. They might even justify it the case of the previous paragraph, claiming that a woman should not resist her husband's command or something in that now-disgusting way (but objectively sexist) . Conclusion In summary, norms can be as noble as they can be dastardly and wicked, and they have a role in subjecting our perception to morality . What we were taught to believe as good and appropriate is not an undeniable truth, even if many would scold you for believing otherwise. From an education such as mine I learned the importance of fearing disrespecting nuclear family. How many of you have the dignity to not disrespect those who raised you, provided for you, and gave you education? Cooperation between individuals on moral grounds is only possible once there is some kind of shared recognition of morality, as long as that moral viewpoints do not contradict one another, and thus, polarize themselves and those who hold them. In fact, one may even claim that there is no such thing as an undeniable truth when it comes to the very gray area that is the philosophical field of ethics. In many ways, unless we're brave enough to disagree and express that disagreement, much of who we are is indeed a product of our environment. However, without a vocal opposition to the norms, they will rarely change. And yet, we must recognize somehow that in someone's eyes, we might be evil in one way or another. And instead of getting into pointless arguments with them, a more intelligent approach is to actually understand why. Perhaps instead of giving in to the feelings of being accused, we can keep an open mind and explore new ideas. And because of too much emotion, we might as well be attacking the philosophical exploration of ideas in the name of our feelings. Is it worth it? John Duran's Testimonial Quote I am forced to admit, I was born different. As a boy I didn't admire the heroes, but the villains. They seem to enjoy life the most, by squeezing the world they got the most they could get out of living. It seems like such a fun craft and you get to cackle evilly on a daily basis, what's not to admire and love?

(Philosocom's Directory On the Virtual Realm) (Background music) Alex Mos's Synopsis Overlord is an anime that explores the concept of a player trapped in a game's virtual world and becoming a character in that reality. In the era of fast technological advances, such imprisonment in a virtual dimension might become a threat, as we can't trust our senses to determine what is real. He is trapped inside a virtual, interactive world is desirable for escapists but can be deceitful and manipulative . What is real is a philosophical question, as, theoretically, we might exist in a simulation and experience our dreams as reality . When engaging in virtual reality, we must be cautious of becoming mentally trapped in a virtual realm. A Dark Lord's Unexpected Journey Imagine you're immersed in a massive virtual world , free to roam and forge your fictional destiny. But a dark cloud looms over that game, in the form of a permanent shutdown. Maintaining these servers without a steady stream of income can be brutal, so, like in the real world, they have to go eventually. One anime that brilliantly explores this concept is Overlord. Here, the virtual world of Yggdrasil suffers this fate, its servers going dark forever. But for Suzuki Satoru , a dedicated player logged in at that fateful moment, things take a bizarre turn. He finds himself trapped – not as his usual character, but as his character, the Dark Lord Ainz Ooal Gown. Suzuki wasn't just any player though. No, he commanded the fearsome reputation of an undead overlord , a high-tier creature of immense power with dominion over countless undead. Thrust into a world he once viewed in a screen, the former salaryman worker must navigate this new reality. Will he use his newfound power to conquer, or will he forge a different path in this uncertain landscape? Either way, all of his goals, along with his kingdom will crumble if his virtual minions know that they work for a forgettable salaryman from another world. He is therefore alone not only in that world, at the top of his empire , but also in his own mind. The False Prophet Imagine traveling to a remote island nation, only for the sole airport connecting it to the outside world to vanish. You're stranded, unable to return to your usual life. This, in essence, is the predicament of that young man trapped within that game, unable to return to his office job. Except, unlike our hypothetical island, the virtual world around him isn't necessarily obscure. It's vibrant, full of life, and completely oblivious to the truth of his situation. They are within their own shared planet, comprised of many nations . He exists as a prisoner within his powerful avatar – a celestial undead lord, a being of unparalleled wisdom (or so his followers believe). The key to survival, then, becomes maintaining the charade . He must conceal his ordinary, game-playing reality from his devoted in-game followers. But the risk of exposure is ever-present. One slip-up, one reveal of his true nature, and his carefully constructed persona crumbles. He'll stand exposed as nothing more than a regular guy caught in a digital world, merely controlling a persona of his own making. Let us fast-forward from this anime series, to a future powered by VR technology. This anime's premise becomes frighteningly plausible. As what? As a glitch in this innovative technology, capable of immersing your mentality in an interactive digital realm. And suddenly, you're trapped within a virtual reality, unable to escape. The question, then, becomes: Will you find a way to break free from this digital prison, or will your true identity be exposed, revealing the ordinary person beneath the VR facade? Navigating a Deceptive Digital Dominion Imagine an elaborate, meticulously crafted fantasy world. Its inhabitants, seeing other worlds only in their own dreams , live and breathe within this simulated reality. It is a prison. A prison of great freedom, in fact, but a prison nonetheless... Much like someone in our world claiming we're all characters in a simulation, such a revelation in this virtual world wouldn't be readily accepted. It's a frightening idea, where you know the truth, and where it's your ulterior motive to hide it from everyone else . People seeking a digital escape from the real world could find themselves trapped, yearning for the familiar shores of their original lives. While the specifics of how such a scenario might unfold are unknown, the potential dangers lurk as technology evolves . VR, once a fantastical idea of "being inside another reality," might become far more uncanny than that. Already, for example, this mind-connecting technology has revealed a new feature in human perception, known as the phantom touch. Do you really think your senses are trustworthy? No. Not when they cooperate with hallucinations, and not when they make you feel you're being touched by virtual beings, within digital worlds, that aren't exactly there... Mark Zuckerberg's vision with Meta might represent a future where VR becomes integrated into daily life, not just for entertainment. We wouldn't be forced to wear VR headsets, but their prevalence could mirror the necessity of smartphones today. Dependence on these "metaverses" could create new risks like the one presented in the Overlord series. In the far future, ordinary office workers with zero leadership experience, might be forced to serve in roles they were never prepared for, just because of a technical difficulty. The constant struggle to maintain facades of a different status, just to enjoy the power said status gives us... That is no ordinary feat, is it? And that's how deceptive and untrustworthy virtual worlds can really be, and even today, when it's easy to hide behind carefully-planned profiles of great and desired people. Humans do really want to be deceived, no? To hear the "truths" they want to hear... This, is the essence of interactive fiction, as interactive worlds in general. It's the ability to inhabit, for a time, fantastical personas. We often have to give people the benefit of the doubt just to benefit from them, and vice versa... It's escapism at its finest , but also one capable of great manipulation, and shattering of human hearts, hopes and dreams. But the line between playful deception and potentially perilous entrapment in a digital realm, and in deception as well, remains a fascinating question to ponder, as technology continues its relentless march forward. Are Virtual Nightmares Our Future? The question of whether we exist in a simulation remains a philosophical enigma. Concrete evidence is elusive, leaving the theory both intriguing and unproven. However, on a pure consciousness level, the potential for mental entrapment in non-physical realities is unnerving. Consider the mysteries of dreaming. Current theories about dreams suggest that they help with emotional processing, memory reinforcement , performance, and creativity. As we sleep, our minds craft elaborate scenarios that feel undeniably real while we experience them. Why do we dream? Beyond the realm of theory, much is to the imagination. Now, apply this concept to the future of VR technology. Could virtual realities become so immersive that our minds struggle to differentiate between real and simulated experiences? You know, just like in many of our dreams? Does that mean VR technology is capable of bringing dreams to reality, similarly to the concept of manifestation in the Silent Hill horror series? The anime we've been discussing explores this very concept. While the protagonist finds himself trapped within a fabricated world, the potential for a similar scenario arising from advanced VR technology becomes eerily plausible. Perhaps the true danger lies not just in physical entrapment, but in the potential for our own minds to become prisoners within meticulously crafted digital realities. These "electronic dreams" could become indistinguishable from waking life, blurring the lines between reality and mere simulation. Why do you think people still crave video games? To simulate a different reality, is a philosophical explanation to that. Conclusion As technology evolves at an ever-increasing pace, the lines between escapism and potentially hazardous digital entrapment become increasingly blurred. T he story of the "false prophet" trapped in a digital dimension serves as a cautionary tale, encouraging us to consider the potential consequences before diving with a full heart, into the captivating, yet potentially perilous, realm of virtual reality. Enjoy these extra sources: https://gamerant.com/overlord-iv-anime-recap/ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/overlord