The Search Bar

(Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com) (Philosocom's Svartgold/Svarl Articles) ******************* Sexual Transmutation produces a conversion of sex into something else. Sexual energy is said to be related not only to sexuality, fertility and reproduction, but also to setting healthy boundaries. Willpower, motivation and creativity. Making money. Feelings that we deserve to enjoy. Whether it's about money, sports, work, career advancement, or empowerment of any kind. The aspiration of being a true, authentic self is necessary for this energy to develop properly. Our selves have been developing since childhood. We are active to obtain money, power, strength, hobbies; All this requires energy and persistence that is associated with such vital energy. How to set boundaries? What does my body represent? Such questions are of sexuality, but also of other fields on our existence. Arguably, it all boils down to the libido. Even in having children, there is also an ambition to provide for them, so you need money, a job. What do you want to learn? And how do you develop your professional direction? What do I start with? Is there anything for me in savings to start my life and achieve something? What is my expectation of myself as a person or as a breadwinner ? The world operates according to actions. Actions are done by energy. Creating money, creating children, creating an understanding of life. Mainly setting boundaries of what one's boundary is with myself or with others. All this comes from the channeling of sexual energy for livelihood, relationship, family, career, the pleasures of life, some of which are of course orgasms even if alone. Excursions. Planning for trips. Planning things in general. Each person produces energy in his body that this energy is spent on resources. To keep the energy flowing, and to channel it for a living, as well, is very important. And for our relationships and for the children. We must prioritize each topic we have chosen. How much and to whom to give this important energy. We also have to, learn to hold this energy for the purposes of self-improvement, career development, prioritization, planning, increased mood and give it to a place that is really relevant. That is why it is also important to have restraint . We have to hold this attraction and sensitivity thing in favor of our success. Something that will make us more motivated even afterwards. And to spiritual understanding. Sexual energy is limited and depends on biological age, hormonal changes, health status and so on. But it can be helped to become more efficient for our benefit. We must understand that sexual energy is limited. We shouldn't waste it limitlessly. We have to set limits for ourselves as well. and make us priorities and time for everything. We must understand that this energy can be depleted immediately after an orgasm or a certain excitement and then it can be lost. We must know and understand to suspend it, whether not to reach sexual emission (in men) or whether to save it for other actions and things. To convert this energy, you can use Indian mantras, tantra ceremonies where you can dance naked to the sounds of music. Without judging our bodies. Understand like children that our body is our sexual energy can be strengthened and preserved by starving sexuality . For 7 days, to decide that even if there is a desire, do and channel it into better directions. It is possible to do guided imagery and feel sexual pleasure in our body without reaching the thrill of orgasm. but still feel wanted. You can dance without judgment and move your body however you want. Courage , strength and power can be imagined. Increase in sexual energy, sexual levitation without intimate touching. A person should ask himself what is his passion ? What will do him good financially? What will make him happy? Measure his actions... and the time he invests in it. Some channel this by balancing the sex chakra which is 3 centimeters below the navel. There are meditations that refer to this chakra. There are people who for a certain period of time are not with a partner and invest more in their career, wanting to achieve financial success. This is also a conversion of the sexual energy. The more we know how to allow the sexual energy a greater place, the more we will channel it in our direction according to our desires. Feelings that come from sexuality are also real feelings, alternations of desire. And this is also a real energy that flows through us. To raise this energy we must think about ourselves and focus on our breathing. Deep breaths. Showers with ice or cold water also help us. Suspend this energy in the directions we wanted. After a few months of conversion of sexuality to other direction and goals, the thinking changes accordingly. We do not need approvals from the environment . And we can be and feel authentic. Capable. Motivated. And carry a strong willpower. This is how we will achieve self-acceptance and compassion for ourselves more and more: We can feel good even if we are alone at home or at all. A higher self-worth and self-image is built. We can live in the here and now. And enjoy the love life that we really want. With excellence. Use this tool and feed it all the time . Like a brain that works all the time. We must use it wisely. For positive purposes, for others. And also for ourselves. Never underestimate it, as long as you have it.

(Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com) (Philosocom's Directory on Heart) The divine organization is so great that it cannot be imagined, and we do not yet know a particle of it properly. Many people still do not know the true and effective meaning of love. God is the bubbling source of love. It is love that is with us in different ways in successive rotations, and when we reach it, we find spiritual and esoteric perfection and get rid of the game of the world and captivity in materiality. In other words, to love ourselves. God is life, and He is the one who put everything He has created in man. Absolute power is full of love, which, in order to show its love to its waves, commanded them to be in the hearts of the particles of the universe, and then, in the most beautiful way possible, created various beings and worlds to manifest itself. Love encompasses the whole universe. All beings float in love, and its waves wave everywhere and crystallize in all the particles of the universe. The universe is the hotbed of love, the divine creatures are its home, and love is its symbol. The world of creation is based on love; love is complete with wisdom and faith; all beings are in motion according to innate love, from the creation of the earthly man to the single heavens, all are moved by love. The center of the whole universe is based on love, and the human heart is also the center and place of love. It is enough to open one's heart to be the host of the waves of love and to know its sweet taste, and if the heart listens to the whisper of love, it will see how it speaks to him in love. Love is not descriptive; it is not the love of the body and touch; it is not about words; it is not conventional; it is neither the body nor the soul. Love cannot be compared to anything, and a limit was set for it. Man can reject love, but love never rejects him, because everyone floats in love, and all other divine creatures give themselves to us as love, and give us life, and make it sweet and lasting. Love means self-sacrifice, which is the essence of life. Can anyone give this essence to others to make him happy? If a person has forgiven so much, then he is in love, and his container of love is full and becomes even fuller in heaven. On the straight path, human beings who move with love and affection make the way to the destination much shorter because the attractiveness of the origin and manifestation of these concepts connects them. Love upright stature; clear thoughts and life for better choices; strength and creativity. Without a loved one, one cannot speak of love; love is apparently burning, but not to be reduced to ashes, but to become light. A great man said: If you do not have the love of the Creator, prepare the love of the creature so that the value of these words of yours will be achieved, and he said that the lover is accounted for by love, as is the beloved because of the lover; he also considers earthly love as a manifestation of divine love. Steps to reach the love of the Creator; free love for His creatures; To love the Creator is to love; to love and serve God's creatures. The universe and all beings are immersed in love. The waves of love for all beings are shining like the rays of the sun, and everyone receives them on the basis of his own vessel. Love belongs to all beings, but especially to human beings. Know that existence is not separate from love. Rather, you must realize that the universe is immersed in a sea of love.

(Philosocom's O. C. Isaac Articles) (Philosocom's Directory on Heart) (Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com) ************************* Poem Synopsis by Mr. J. Igwe and Co. "A Tale of the Silent Hour: 5 Poems on the Philosophy of the Heart" by Ogbule Chibuzo Isaac is a philosophical exploration of the human condition through poetry. The poems explore themes of heartbreak , love, memory , and healing as logical processes intertwined with the philosophical journey of understanding and growth. The work challenges the traditional dichotomy between emotion and logic, presenting emotion as a crucial tool for understanding and processing life's experiences, especially in the context of love and heartbreak. The poem "Disappointment Rules Her Heart" narrates a journey from sorrow to hope, a process that is emotional yet follows a logical progression. Memory plays a significant role in the philosophical discourse, as it serves as a bridge between the past and present , helping individuals make sense of their current emotions. In "Broken Hearted But Still Breathing," the theme of resilience emerges as a logical outcome of emotional suffering, suggesting that even in despair, t here is an inherent strength within the human spirit that drives one towards healing. The most profound philosophical insight in the article is found in the poem "When The Heart Cannot Speak," where the heart is depicted as possessing a "universal language" that transcends words and intellectual understanding. This can be interpreted as a philosophical statement about the limits of rationality and the importance of intuitive, emotional wisdom. Isaac's work stands as a testament to the idea that philosophy is not just about abstract reasoning but also about grappling with the realities of the human experience . By integrating emotion into his philosophical exploration , he provides a richer, more holistic understanding of the heart's role in shaping our lives. ( Mr. Rubinshtein's Note: This beautiful series of poetry describes the logical process of heartbreak recovery in a very emotional way! The series can serve as testimony that logic and emotion do not always contradict in philosophy, for the end justifies the means! What I mean by that is simple: If the reasoning presented here is true, and describes what one needs to recover from heartbreaks in an on-point manner, then yes! Logic and emotion are not always contradictory ! Hahahahahaha! They are only contradictory when emotion distorts information , not, of course, when it helps emphasize it further! It also proves how emotions are tools for content creators to get their message across in a way that resonates with the audience, and help them understand the information they receive, more. As such, a way to further highlight the relevance of philosophy is to use emotion as a tool to sharpen the understanding of the readership, and it's something that many great philosophers failed at doing. Arguably, Nietzsche's legacy is remembered much due to his emotions which he integrated with his content. For example: Emotion can help us better distinguish Kli from Tochen, primary from secondary ). (Background music) ********************* Disappointment Rules Her Heart: Disappointment rules her heart With a heavy hand, it grips and clings A shroud of sadness, tearing apart Her once bright spirit, with sorrow it brings She tries to shake it off, but in vain For it seems to follow her every step A constant reminder of her pain A shadow that refuses to let go, it creeps But still she rises, with grace and might Her determination shining through the night For she knows that happiness awaits And the sun will rise on a brighter day, it awaits She'll find the strength to break free From the chains of disappointment's hold And see the beauty that surrounds Her life story, to be retold So let her heart be filled with hope And let her spirit soar once more For she deserves a brighter tomorrow And a life that shines with endless love. She Want to be Loved: She wants to be loved, with all of her heart A love that's pure, and will never depart With a passion that burns, like a fire so bright And a happiness that shines, like the stars at night She wants to be loved, with a love that's true A bond that endures, and will always be new With a heart that beats, with a rhythm so strong And a love that grows, and will never go wrong She wants to be loved, with a love that's warm A feeling that comforts, and keeps her from harm With a touch that soothes, and a smile that shines And a love that brings, peace to her mind. She wants to be loved, with a love that's kind A compassion that's real, and always so fine And with each passing moment, she only hopes For a love that's true, and one that she'll always know For she wants to be loved, with all of her heart A love that's pure, and will never depart And with each passing day, she holds on tight And prays for a love, that will always be bright. Memories of Time Forgotten: Memories of time forgotten, like leaves in the wind Drifting and swaying, away from where they've been Remnants of moments, that once felt so real Now just whispers, that we can barely feel They echo softly, in the depths of our mind Reminding us of times, that are now left behind Of laughter, of love, and of moments so bright That now seem distant, like stars in the night But still they linger, like a fragrance in the air Bringing us back, to moments that we'd like to share And in the stillness, we can hear them call Memories of time forgotten, standing tall So let us hold on, to these memories we've made For they will always, be with us, never to fade And in the stillness, we'll be taken back in time To memories of time forgotten, a love that still shines. Broken Hearted But Still Breathing: Broken hearted but still breathing, In this world that's so deceiving Where love can be so unkind And leave you shattered, and confined Broken hearted but still standing, Despite the wounds that are expanding And the pain that cuts so deep And the memories that you keep Broken hearted but still trying, To pick up the pieces, and surviving And find a way, to heal and mend And rise above, this heartache and bend For though you're broken, you're still alive And there's a strength, that will thrive And a hope, that will grow within And help you heal, and begin again So hold on tight, to your dreams and your faith And trust that love, will come again one day For broken hearted but still breathing, Is a journey, that you're worth achieving. When The Heart Cannot Speak: When the heart cannot speak, and the words won't come, And the feelings inside, are a burden that's numb. When the pain is too deep, and the tears won't dry, And the silence is deafening, as the soul starts to cry. That's when the heart takes over, and it starts to heal, With a language that's universal, and a power that's real. It's the language of love, and the power of care, And it reaches out, to heal the soul with its rare. For the heart is wise, and it knows what's true, And it speaks in a way, that only the soul can construe. It's a message of hope, and a promise of peace, And it lifts us up, when our spirit wants to release. So when the heart cannot speak, and the words won't come, Let us listen to the heart, and the message it's spun. For it's a voice that's true, and a love that's deep, And it will heal our soul, and send us to sleep

(Background music) Summary by Mr. Ephraim Peter The article "Philosophizing on Music -- The Connecting Element" explores the unique communicative power of music, highlighting its ability to transcend language and cultural barriers. It discusses the logical structure of music, likening it to reading a book, and its emotional impact, which can evoke strong feelings through specific sequences of notes. The article also touches on the controversial topic of tuning frequencies and affirms music's role as a universal language of feelings, connecting individuals across different cultures and languages. (Background music) Music as an Abstract Language Music is often described as a universal language, as it is capable of crossing several cultures at the same time , but what exactly makes it so? Can we truly consider it communication if it lacks spoken words or concrete imagery? This article explores the idea that music, can be a powerful form of communication through specific interactions of elements, even without a traditional melody. And thus, it can be quite a powerful tool that can alter mindsets practically and as such bias it as presented with the language bias , although quite differently. While melody is can be considered as the "soul" of music, its absence doesn't necessarily negate its communicative power. Rhythm, tempo, instrumentation, and even silence all play crucial roles in conveying emotions, altering moods, and telling stories. A heartbeat-like drumbeat can evoke tension, a soaring string melody can express excitement, and a somber piano solo can speak of profound sadness. These elements, when expertly combine together, form an organization of meaning that transcends the barriers of any spoken language. And that indicates the fact that we have intuitive knowledge of music that exists even before we are born. Logic of Music: Data For the Mind, Not Just the Senses Furthermore, the ability to understand music isn't solely reliant on our ears. For those who can "read" music fluently, the score itself becomes a silent dialogue, as if one is reading a an actual book. The placement of notes on a page, the symbols and their length and emphasis, all resonate with a mental plan... or in other words logical reasoning . As such, the quality of music can also be determined by the level of its profound logical composition . When it is not "logical" enough, its quality is reduced. And by "logical" I refer to its ability to deliver exactly what it means to deliver, similarly to the spoken and written word. Because when you don't make sense in your words, you fail to be logical. Apply the same to music to see what I mean. After all, a great composer is to music what a great writer is to words. Numbers , words and notes are but codes we create, decipher, and apply. It's a very cognitive thing, and necessarily so. As even in the absence of sound, Beethoven, who composed some of his greatest works after losing his hearing , stands as a testament to a few insights: Music requires rules. Music requires knowledge. Music can be written like words. You can do and acquire all of these without the current need to be capable of hearing. There's an undeniable technical and mathematical dimension to music, a set of rules and structures that can be learned and mastered without the necessity of empiricism . This intellectual aspect, regardless of one's innate talents and personal experiences, allows us to appreciate the universal complexities of music, and to better decipher the hidden and symbolic messages encoded within its rhythms and harmonies. Even those who wouldn't consider themselves "musical" can find joy and understanding in the logic and beauty of musical composition. And as such, music could be universal in its connection to humanity because it appeals to us intuitively. And it is evident in the fact that our minds are wired to be lazy, intuition is a more common approach to shared understanding of communication. The Emotional Power of Music And it is due to the intuitive-emotional aspect of our mental lives (the right side of our brains) , that music captivates us like no other medium. We readily acknowledge its emotional impact, its ability to launch us like missiles, from joyous heights to melancholic depths and everything in between. But within undeniable influence, a question arises: Why? What "magic" these intricate patterns of sound hold such potent emotional weight? Let us, then, further delve into the enigmatic allure of music, focusing not on the "what" but the "why." Music, I propose, transcends mere communication, and surely it does the interactions of numbers; it's a language of feeling, capable moving more people than a mathematic equation or an emotionless philosophy article. While logic dictates that upbeat music should spark joy, the exact mechanism remains shrouded in mystery, adding further to its interest as all mysterious concepts. Why does this carefully arranged sequence of notes elicit a flood of dopamine, making us feel like we're living and not just alive? The "why" remains elusive, yet the "what" is as clear as day – music shapes our mentality with every note, painting emotional landscapes onto the canvas of our being. This sensory information, though devoid of concrete reasoning, bypasses the logical pathways of the mind and speaks directly to the heart . Upbeat tunes don't need intellectual arguments to induce cheer, nor to convince the crowd what they're trying to convey as with the complex of the former. No. Their mere existence, when applied to listening experience, suffices. It's a testament to the raw power of music, its ability to bypass logic and tap into the intuitive self. This intuitive self, by the way, has been attributed spiritual traits, such as being a hive for much untapped knowledge and power that lies beyond physical existence. True or not, the intuitive self is also known as our true selves. Which could indicate that music has the power to resonate with our true selves as well, potentially unlocking much other-wise locked power within us. Those who believe in the law of attraction , for example, believe that this special aspect of the self can manifest desires into reality. So, with the powers that do exist within the intuitive/true self, can somehow be interacted with, the more resonated we feel when we listen to certain music, at certain times, indicating the self... itself. Universal Symphonies, Personal Dances My own experience with Russian and Japanese military marches exemplifies this beautifully.   Though the words remain beyond my grasp , the "spirit," the "atmosphere" of these anthems resonates deeply within me – a shared understanding born not out of language or common culture, but of the inherent emotional language of music itself. This collective intuition extends beyond individual experiences . Our shared perception of Mauritania's former anthem as "villainous" , despite language barriers, hints at a deeper connection, perhaps even a glimpse into the collective unconscious that unites us all. Even seemingly subtle aspects like tuning hold surprising sway over our emotions.   Tuning at 440 Hz, the current among orchestras , might be the familiar soundtrack of our lives, but venturing into the realm of 432 Hz unlocks a "hidden door", altering our heart rate. The subtle shift in frequency, as I discovered during a cross-country journey, can infuse even unassuming melodies with a surprising surge of energy. However, while scientific research seem to debunk it, it fails to negate the profound influence music wields over some of our well-being. It serves as a potent reminder that just because something eludes complete or universal understanding, it doesn't negate its existence or its impact on personal testimonies. As such we must remember the deeply personal nature of this emotional dance with music.  Music, indeed, is a universal language, not of words, but of feelings, resonating within us each in our own unique way. But let us not forget the fact that we all have these relationships with certain pieces of music, which are unique to us and us alone, even. In conclusion, music's ability to convey emotions, tell stories, and evoke deep responses within us through its various parameters establishes it as a powerful language in its own right.  Whether we hear it through our ears or "read" it with our eyes, music speaks to our hearts and minds, connecting us across cultures, languages, the senses -- and even our intellects.

(Philosocom's Directory on Bias) (Subcategory On Memory, Nostalgia and the Unconscious) Article Synopsis by Ms. Gabbi Grace "The Nostalgia Experiment -- When Bias is Right" is an insightful article that explores the impact of nostalgia on our perceptions of past experiences , particularly in retro video games. Mr. Tomasio applied a self-conducted experiment where he revisited old PS2 games and analyzed their feelings of joy, despite the games' acknowledged flaws. The article provides a mix of personal reflections and philosophical musings on how subjective experiences can sometimes align with reality. The article's strength lies in its personal touch, making the topic relatable and engaging. Many readers will likely identify with the experience of revisiting something from their past and finding joy in it despite its imperfections. The article acknowledges the power of nostalgia bias while questioning whether this bias might reveal deeper truths. The author is not blindly defending his nostalgia, but is open to the possibility that their feelings might have validity beyond mere sentimentality. The article also explores the philosophical implications of their experience, questioning whether bias always leads us astray or if it can sometimes point us toward a more profound truth. This layer of philosophical inquiry adds depth to the discussion and elevates the article beyond a simple reflection on video games. In conclusion, "The Nostalgia Experiment -- When Bias is Right" is a thought-provoking article that successfully blends personal experience with philosophical reflection. (Background music) Introduction For the sake of writing this article, I have conducted a specific experiment on myself. The purpose of that experiment was to try and see, whether the things I look at, with great nostalgia, are actually as enjoyable as I've seen them to be, long after I had them in my possession. In other words, I wanted to better understand a specific bias, the nostalgia bias ( also known as the nostalgia effect ), which looks at things as better than they actually were, just because of positive, past experience. These are my findings and my insights on them. Part I: The Experiment I am mainly giving here games as examples. However, obscure classics like "The Room"  still influenced me to this very day. Other examples are the esoteric "background music" themes you can find across Philosocom. Ideas, like having a blog today, resonates mainly with the past, where blogs were more dominant . This even applies to trends like skateboarding and disciplines like philosophy (academically) . Either way, both the esoteric, the currently-irrelevant, and fiction in general, can often teach us about reality either way. For over a decade, the iconic PS2 lay inactive in my memory , gathering dust like a relic of bygone eras. Then, a birthday gift restored the forgotten console from memory to reality, casting me back into a pixelated world I once devoured with addiction. Looking back, these games were riddled with imperfections that critics pointed out mercilessly and with bias. Yet, through my innocently-tainted lens of nostalgia, they shimmered with an undeniable charm I haven't found anywhere ever since. The harsh critiques stung with their counterpoints to the positivity of obscure media. My questions are the following: have I stumbled onto a grand illusion? Are my childhood memories none more than a fabrication of my mind? As I realized, the answer is no, and no to these two questions, at least partially. You see, these critics can't cancel my own subjective reality, which is equally real as theirs . Perhaps, the critics missed the mark, blinded by their sophisticated standards, without actually asking themselves "were there people who enjoyed these flawed games?". Maybe, just maybe, my biased nostalgia held a nugget of truth, making subjectivity in general worthy of redemption. "Appeal To Novelty" Vs The Allure of Innovation Modern games, with their dazzling graphics and intricate mechanics, paled in comparison to the retro magic, for some uncanny reason. This proves how the appeal to novelty is a fallacy . The "better" experience they provided, as conventional wisdom dictates, failed to ignite the same spark. This phenomenon wasn't unique to me; the family member who gifted me the console confessed to a similar disconnect. We were not the only ones with the same sentiments, as there are more-objective reasons for the decrease of joy in video games, from quantity-over-quality of many games' content to focusing on having us addicted rather than having fun. Nostalgia, yes, undoubtedly swayed my perception. But could it be the sole culprit? Or was there a deeper truth hidden within the primitive graphics? Perhaps, it was the unpretentiousness, the raw gameplay unburdened by excessive complexity. Maybe, it was the fact that they helped me relieve me of my loneliness , which I feel to an extent to this very day. Understanding the allure of the "better" is easy. We're conditioned to equate advancement with superiority. Yet, this seemingly logical equation crumbles when confronted with the emotional resonance of simpler experiences, as sufficient to deliver us what we were promised. Nostalgia, I realized, wasn't just a sugar-coated lens. It could serve as evidence of lives that were well-lived. Well-lived shared laughter, discovery, and memories, mentally experiencing upon one's reflection on the past. So, while I acknowledge the shortcomings of retro games ( like of a game that improved my morality ), I celebrate their ability to deliver joy that transcends technical prowess (graphics, soundtrack and so on). Modern marvels hold their own undeniable appeal. But in the realm of gaming, it seems, "better" isn't always synonymous with "more enjoyable." Sometimes, joy resides in the imperfections of this intricate reality. Also in video games but also in many other fields of life, such as in music and in art. It's also why the 2000's have a charm of their own , just like with the decades before it. Part II: When Nostalgia Meets Truth While bias often warps our judgment, there are times when our twisted perspectives unexpectedly align with reality. I freely admit my bias towards the vintage video games of my childhood. Yet, what surprised me most was discovering that my biased lens not only painted a different picture, but might actually resonate with the fun I had 20 years ago. A true philosopher strives to minimize bias, seeking diverse perspectives to comprehend the full scope of truth. However, this experiment suggests a fascinating possibility: perhaps our preexisting biases aren't always completely irrational. If my fondness for retro games stemmed purely from bias, playing them wouldn't differ from enjoying any other product. But something inexplicable happens when I revisit these pixelated worlds -- they spark a joy unparalleled in modern gaming. Furthermore, some may even claim that modernity has generally lost its spark, as the world around us became more bland. This begs the question, if bias leads us astray from reality, then why does this "deviant" viewpoint resonate so deeply? Even the hardware limitations contribute to the charm . The occasional console crash, a well-considered objective flaw, can also be seen as just another quirk, adding to the unique experience. Conclusions Modern games, despite their sophisticated mechanics, often feel sterile and "liveless", like polished but soulless gems. Older games express a distinct spirit -- an infectious vibrancy that transcends graphics and complexity. Like in true love , some flaws in a product, like in a person, can be loveable. Perhaps, things and beings can be loved because of their flaws. The question remains: why is my biased nostalgia seemingly aligned with truth? Why does retro simplicity sometimes trump modern marvels? This, I confess, is a mystery yet to be completely unraveled. Perhaps it's the raw, unfiltered emotions into these early experiences, or maybe the sense of adventure fueled by limited technology, with little need for excellent degrees of beauty . However, whatever the reason, one thing is clear: Sometimes, embracing a touch of nostalgia leads not to delusion, but to a rediscovery of experience "forgotten" by the unconscious mind.

(Subcategory On Memory, Nostalgia and the Unconscious) (Background music) Even 20 years ago, life was vastly different than it is today. Nobody had smartphones; wide T.V.s were considered a luxury, and the computers , along with the internet, looked a bit funny. For more than a decade, I repressed my love for my childhood because of how nihilistic I felt back then , spending almost all of my free time playing video games alone. In fact, it was during childhood that I realized I had an affinity for the existential scale of life -- the one I now call philosophy. I wanted to do more than just play the same games on my PlayStation 2, but I didn't know what. I don't think you could've built a good website back then like you could nowadays. Regardless, even with all the joy I had as a retro gamer (I used the same console for over 10 years or so), something was amiss, and that something had a higher meaning . Something that could be useful to me beyond the casual joys of the first world back then. Now that I have hundreds of content pieces behind me, written in a matter of a few years, I do miss the times where I could just play my console and forget about everything. Do you have the same feelings, as an adult? I do have a console nowadays, but it does not retain the innocent immersion I had back in the nostalgic 2000s. Video games back then were different . Your console would not become an alternative to the arcade machines that drain your money, just to get things to improve your games. Back then, you often got the whole product and could play it all without spending an extra penny. The entertainment of today just feels different. It feels more "capitalistic", for lack of a better word. It feels... "mechanized". I don't know if it's the nostalgic bias within me that speaks instead of myself, but things indeed seem to have felt different than they do today. The games that I bought with my own money, do not seem to be as fun as the games I used to have; many of those are the same games I might never get to play again, unfortunately. And the same goes for movies, shows, or any other type of media. It feels industrialized, rather than having "spirit" within it; the same "spirit" that I at least felt back in childhood, as the feelings of nihilism stayed in the shadows, looking at me. It is thanks to these feelings, that I became a philosopher. My own family wanted me to go outside and play with others. Can you believe that? It's absurd nowadays, because even the social aspect of our lives has become very embedded in electronics, instead of face-to-face. Can you see children today who play with each other instead of being glued to their smartphones? That is how much the world has changed in a span of 10, 20 years. And that time of "spirit", and "immersion" in the media one is consuming, might as well never go back. I played some of the games they make today. They lack the "soul" I seek and can be quickly finished. Some pose no challenge, while others only bring suffering to the easily stressed, but regardless, they lack the "soul" of the old days. Everything has been done, and is thus recycled into "new content" as if it were a language-model (AKA, like "Sentient AI") , or it gives you the other solution of repeating the same "content" over and over again, like in many MMO's. It's if you are a worker and not someone who plays a video game or watches a movie. It feels all the same, and it feels like it's there just to waste time, without any immersion. Why do I like a bad game such as Suikoden IV so much? I'll give you an example of what I'm trying to convey. That game had many flaws, but it was the game that introduced me to the "true spirit" of digital media. It was bad, but at least you got to be someone in your own mind, and go to explore new places without knowing about them beforehand. However, with a quick reach of the hand to the smartphone' you could immerse yourself in the graphics without being distracted by your phone's notifications. Do you get what I mean? Beyond the many distractions we have today, we could use content as a means for " meditation ". Playing a game, back then, meant that you got to be in greater solitude, and, thus, in greater immersion. You didn't have two computers (the smartphone and the home computer/laptop) to both distract you all the time, and if you wanted to hang out with people, you could do so while having their full attention. That is the "spirit" I'm talking about. Of being so immersed in something, like a show or a video game, that it could be an alternative to the original known method of meditation -- the Buddhist Zen Meditation. You see, if I weren't a writer, I would really consider stepping out of all my social media accounts and speaking to whomever I wish, like in the old days, vocally, instead of by texting. Texting can happen anywhere and anytime, and thus it destroys your current immersion in whatever you're doing. I don't even see why a phone must have been a computer of its own. That idea was dumb because it became something many people found themselves doing in most, if not all, of their free time. It was a dumb idea because sitting in front of a computer, or receiving a phone call, was the last days of humanity without the FOMO many of us have. It was like a "ritual" you're having. A regular "ceremony" that organizes your life and allows you to better divide your time, your attention, and your energies, more effectively, instead of them being scattered all over the place. Everything had its time and thus, things could have their fair share of proper concentration and dedication. I miss the days where I received a special phone call from a parent every day, each evening, not because I want to speak with him less, but because back then, when you had this "ceremony", it felt different. Like it had more "spirit", more immersion, and more importance. Here, that parents wants to speak with me, right here, right now, after the end of the day! You could get "into the zone" or whatever, without the stress of multitasking over several devices. I miss when games didn't require you to have an internet connection just to play them, and I surely miss having no stranger have the ability to send me messages on my contemporary console, just because it is "online". And the music! Oh, the music sure was different. It wasn't as recycled as it is today, and it indeed felt more... "spiritual", especially the one from the game I told you I really liked. One of the many reasons I live in solitude, is to try and restore the times I had in the 2000s, when I was alone while my mother was sleeping, and I could do whatever I wanted after homework as done. You may call me childish, but at least I get to live the kind of life I want. I don't see what's wrong with that. I still work on Philosocom like you want to. And indeed, when you're a hermit who isn't filled with piles of meaningless text messages, videos, and photos, you get to do things you would've otherwise had a harder time doing. Do you see now why I get to write so much? It's the depth that was amiss from my life so much before my philosophership... It is because I get to be alone, just like when I was a child. No physical friends, no hangouts, or any other distraction, other than the occasional visit of a family member. That is how I solve the infamous writer's block -- by re-creating the environment of the period when distractions were less common. Anyhow, that is the ultimate flaw of having so many things within our immediate reach; we get overwhelmed, we get tired, exhausted, and the things we once liked, have their experience decrease in quality. That is at least what I can report from my own example as a human being in a world that has been vastly changed by newer technology. The only reason I am connected to the world as much as I am is to spread my content further across the world. I just have to be where all the potential audience is, you see, even though I have my own restrictions.

Alex Mos's Synopsis Thinking is the method of processing information to obtain and understand knowledge. We generate wisdom by using knowledge to create something new, like a conclusion or opinion. Thinking deeply means discovering a greater perspective or meaning in information. Deep thinking aims to gain an understanding of something unknown, which sometimes can become wisdom and be applied to a clever action. A wise person is a good decision-maker . Everybody can think deeply about everything, r egardless of intelligence . We only need to dedicate time to self-learning and contemplating questions that matter to us. Philosophizing is a form of deep thinking about the meanings and functionalities of things and beings, expressed through multiple questions and answers. A person who is an auto-didact and a philosopher can become a great thinker, constantly exploring new ideas, transforming them into practice, and feeding on their thoughts for a prolonged time. Philosophers should express their ideas publicly in writing or other media, proving their worth as philosophers and content creators. *************** Okay, okay, I'll tell you a secret that not many people will tell you: It's very difficult for autodidacts (self-taught learners) to deal with people who don't like to learn. At the same time, it's very difficult for scholars to deal with autodidacts. The bottom line is that there's a lot of weight to controlling information and who holds it. A person who teaches themselves is a dangerous person. -- Anonymous (Background music) How to Think Deeply One of the purposes of thinking is to obtain, process and understand knowledge. Generally, there are two main types of knowledge: knowledge that comes from exposure (learning new concepts, gaining more familiarity with a certain subject) and knowledge that is translated into wisdom . In order to think, one needs to expose oneself to a certain source of information (the internet or the library, for example), and the second is to use that knowledge in the process of one's thoughts. An internal piece of knowledge that is generated on the basis of external knowledge is called an insight. An a piece of knowledge that stems both internally and is based on external knowledge, which can be used to plan ahead, is called foresight . Lastly, when it stems from past events, it can be called a hindsight . When one uses the knowledge one has in one's arsenal to create something new (a conclusion, an opinion, even a book), one produces wisdom , and wisdom is an example of a higher level of thinking, in which one can claim to be deep-thinking. Deep thought, is, overall, an astute , cognition-based production and understanding of new and existing knowledge. And the deep thinker is like an industrial complex of such resource. And yes, knowledge can be regarded as a resource, and thus, an asset. By having and generating knowledge, you can gain power in society, hence why philosophers, for example, may be viewed as powerful and authorative . You can use this article as a source for deep-thinking through the process of reflection , and even seeing an ant colony on the earth can get someone to think deeply. Thinking deeply is to find or create the bigger picture or meaning which lies in every piece of information. One can argue that there are more ways, however, contradicting a statement is by itself the ability to create something new from an already existing entity and its symbolism. A simple or ordinary form of thinking can be described as having few questions and answers, or even just a question and an answer (especially if they themselves are simple and shallow. This is not deep thinking because producing wisdom requires progressive and complex exploration of a subject. Feep-thinking/wisdom is an equivalent to art : you have the colors, tools and patterns in the form of knowledge, and the art piece you produce from it, can be identified as a form of wisdom: you create something new from an already existing resource: Apply what you have learned previously. The element which drives one to seek wisdom is mystery , or in other words: the unknown . Hence, the purpose of deep thinking is to gain knowledge about something you don’t know . And of course, if it has practical value, the product of your intellectual findings can be translated into wisdom, by being applied into action in a clever way. Some people may refer to clever ways as "correct' and unwise ways as "incorrect" or as "mistakes". Either way, what defines a clever/correct application of knoweldge, AKA wisdom, is the results of your actions. As such, the wise man or woman is a good decision-maker . In contrast to simple thinking , deep thinking is done independently or in an intellectual discussion or brainstorm , and takes more time and dedication. It's possible that wisdom, or the beneficial application of knowledge , can be extracted from every possible piece of information. Therefore, deep thinking is always possible in any field of knowledge. It does not necessarily imply that only people with a high enough IQ can engage in such an action, because even a person who is not highly intelligent can create something new from the knowledge they have. However, people with lower IQ may struggle more in deep thinking, in education and in the professional world. Everyone has some kind of knowledge at their disposal . All one needs to do is to be aware of that knowledge, and ask questions that relate to that knowledge, which may create further questions, which in turn may create new knowledge, which is the answer one has reached. Philosophers, either "Sorcerers" or "wizards" , are considered deep thinkers. From Socrates to Diogenes to more modern examples like Daniel Dennet. How to be an Auto-Didact One can learn to think more deeply and philosophically through the practice of autodidacticism . The meaning of autodidacticism is self-education or self-learning, or in other words, to be one's own teacher. Perhaps, there is a more personally-adjusted method of deepening one's thought than simply being alone for a period of time in one's daily life, and simply contemplating on questions which one sees as important and valuable to oneself. It can then be translated to the quest for answers by your own accord, externally of yourself. That is in fact how I studied the English language. Auto-Didacts include inventors like Thomas Edison and polymaths like Leonardo DaVinci . How to Philosophize Philosophizing , a form of deep thinking, is expressed through a series of multiple questions and answers, based on examination . It is done on the existential degree, and is about the meanings and functionalities of things and beings. All in the name of researching the truth beyond mere-information gathering, like journalists do . It is also known as the Socratic Method . An auto-didact, by the way, is more capable of practicing Socrates' method independently than people who are more intellectually passive or dependent in comparison. Unify the auto-didact and the philosopher and you can get a great thinker . An active great thinker is that that constantly philosophizes in his or her mind, forming and examining ideas, and trying to get ways to apply said ideas into reality. Their intellect is like an ever-developing, mental organism that is able to feed on its own material for quite long, with reduced chances of ever getting bored . Philosophizing, and deep thinking in general, are essentially more-than-simple cognitive processes where you examine pieces of information you either recieve or create, and/or convert them into practice. Writing for example can easily be the product of such mental activities, hence why a writing or any other form of media can reflect the thinking of the writer/content creator; they are literally conversions from the " mental dimension " to what we exclusively deem as " the real world ". Every philosopher that converts these functions into media can be deemed a content creator. It would be very difficult to deem a philosopher as such if they keep all the philosophizing to themselves. Thus, the media they generate is the most basic proof of their philosophership (AKA, the quality of being a philosopher). Review by Mr. O. C. Isaac and Co. "How to Think Deeply, Be a Self Learner and Philosophize" by Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein is an insightful article that explores the nature of deep thinking, self-learning, and the practice of philosophy. The article is well-structured with clear headings and subheadings, offering a thorough explanation of concepts like deep thinking, wisdom , and autodidacticism. It encourages self-learning and being an autodidact, which can greatly benefit individuals in today's information-driven world. The philosophical approach discussed in the article aligns with the traditional philosophical approach of critical thinking and examination. In conclusion, Mr. Tomasio's article provides a comprehensive and insightful look into the processes of deep thinking, self-learning, and philosophizing, encouraging readers to engage in these intellectual pursuits.

(Philosocom's Directory on Heart) Philosophy isn't regarded as something popular or mainstream, and due to the influence of academics, some people may associate it with higher education. However, they fail to realize that this field, starting with Socrates , was supposed to be a public feature and not necessarily the sole property of an intellectual elite. That is, because everyone intelligent enough is capable of philosophizing, or simply contemplating , on the worth of life and other subjects of depth, through logical reasoning and skepticism. I think that philosophy is in a sad state nowadays, and people who see themselves as philosophers, could easily be seen as pseudo-intellectuals, while all they want is to practice contemplation and attempt to gain insights on their own or through debate. The association of the self with philosophy is also associated with narcissism , with the belief that one is so in love with themselves that they are full of themselves, as well. Should you be as naïve as I was at the beginning of my "career" as a philosopher, the world at large would see you as a pretentious, condescending man, all because I wanted to give my two cents, too. (More on that here) For some reason, the branding of someone with philosophizing, might create a bit of resentment from others because, as long as you don't have official credentials, you can easily be suspected of either deception or self-delusion. That is the problem of philosophizing without credentials: The fact that academics are so overrated that you are frequently required to have some qualification or certificate in order for your voice to be heard in a field that anyone can easily fill! How come? Isn't philosophy the field of the genius ? You see, I believe that philosophy is more of an ability than a profession , just like the ability to walk, to talk, and so on. While it might not be as basic as what I presented, deep contemplations via logic are something that shouldn't require a degree in order to be taken seriously. After all, it doesn't matter WHO someone said but WHAT they said. Philosophers shouldn't regard themselves as better than anyone else , and no one else should just assume that they do just because of their love of contemplation and wisdom. A philosophical article doesn't need to have a specific, orderly structure, as long as it is understood and grounded in either good logic, good evidence, or both. After all, philosophy is the mother of all sciences not the other way around (source for that below). It didn't start with a prestigious professor who spoke to you earlier and gave you homework. It started with people who simply wanted to ask essential questions about existence : why am I here, what do I have to live for, what might happen after I die, and so on and on. It is a naïve, yet honest, thing to ask: Why should philosophy be rendered irrelevant in this day and age when it can speak to so many people' hearts? Have you ever worked in a job you didn't like, and asked yourself, " What in the world am I doing here ? " What am I doing here? What is my life beyond work, family, and friends? These are essential questions, and likewise, they are philosophical questions, as they are rooted in the need of many of us, to continue living on in a world that doesn't necessarily care about you or acknowledge your existence. By creating this site, I wanted to do something greater than simply write my articles : I wanted them to touch the human heart , not just the heart of an academic or an intellectual. It doesn't come from a need to boast my ego or "help" those whom I believe to be "needy" or "desperate" -- I simply want to make philosophy relevant. Not only my philosophy about stuff, but philosophy in general. I want to help make the field more accessible, as it deserves. The problem with religion, with love , with entertainment, and so on, comes from the fact that they don't always satisfy the human heart. More specifically, the problem arises when we may think they do. This is a delusion of endless desire. You can be a zealot of a certain religion, have a happy family, enjoy material wealth and technology, and still find yourself at night questioning why you even do the things you do. Do you see now, how basic philosophy is? Not necessarily in complexity, but in its ultimate functionality, it can fulfill the basic need for purpose. Actual science does not provide us with answers to existential questions, but philosophizing can. Science doesn't necessarily have a purpose beyond explaining the technicalities of things. However, as humans, technicalities do not suffice. After all, what is the point in them when they don't fulfil our hearts with the joy of insight and the possibility of discovering new things about life that can be used to "justify" our existence? The need for contemplation comes from the fact that we have life-and-existence-related problems . If we didn't have these problems in life, we wouldn't need to philosophize. It is important to have a drive to contemplate, so we would be likelier to handle said problems. The easiest way to escape our problems, of course, is through distractions, through things that keep us away from the potential of the abyss; to make us forget, for a while at least, that our existence is a "problem." The "problem" stems from the fact that, we were never asked to be here, and yes, we can be punished by the world for the possibility of ending the supposed absurdity of existence. A philosopher is simply a seeker of knowledge related to the deeper aspects of existence , and they won't necessarily be satisfied by looking things up online or through other means of external research. Sometimes, the research can be done within . Within the mind. Combine both and you can write great pieces, but I digress. The need for philosophy stems from a possible lack of satisfaction from life. And from a lack of satisfaction from the things that are commonly accepted as true, as well. Research isn't necessarily required , as philosophizing is this: the need to keep one away from the knife, the gun, the top of a building , and the need to genuinely smile. They don't necessarily have the answers to what they seek, because otherwise, they wouldn't need to seek them in the first place. But unlike many others, they at least bother solving their existential problems. Some of them, like myself, help others as well by doing so (like in the form of this site). They're not necessarily full of themselves, because they simply want to expand their knowledge through logic . Finally, they're not necessarily arrogant narcissists, because seeing one as a philosopher, doesn't mean that you love yourself , or even want to be who you are currently. For now, think of the following: We were all born once, through a simple process: escaping our mother's birth canal. It isn't that we necessarily wanted to be in this world, when we came here. We didn't come as babies with a smile, but with a cry of suffering, as we were naked and covered in blood, into a world we were never asked to be in and with a life we never asked for. Existence, you see, is forced upon us, and philosophy can be utilized to change this status, as it's, as said, forced upon. Through philosophizing, life can be not only a bother, but an non-reluctant choice. My former "master" called my articles "poor". What he failed to realize is that the worth of an article doesn't come from how it is built, at least not exclusively, but ultimately, in how it can influence the hearts and minds of people, as is expected when doing anything in the first place. Thus, a proper philosopher, in my eyes, is not someone who serves their words to the exclusive audience of a select elite, but to all humans, across the Earth. My quest for relevance is thus not only for my own sake, but also for the sake of my occupation: to make people see this existence as voluntary, thereby ending its status as forced upon in the eyes of many people. That's how philosophy can touch people's hearts, whether they are rich CEOs or factory workers, men and women; it should appeal to anyone, AS IT CAN BE. Source from ResearchGate: Dierks, Nicolas. (2014). Re: Is science a part of or separate from philosophy?. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is-science-a-part-of-or-separate-from-philosophy/52e11a1cd685cc0b208b4621/citation/download .

(Note: This article was originally written in the Reaping Fatigue Era , which I overcame long since) (Philosocom's Subcategory on Suikoden Content) (Background music) ******************************* For those newer to the site, the one piece of media that influenced me the most is one known as Suikoden IV . From that game, much of my moral philosophy came from... It's a game where you essentially play as a heroic military leader with a magical illness, known as the Rune of Punishment . In a world supposedly controlled by destiny , the cursed rune cannot be avoided, which means that that hero is meant to be punished for using that Rune's powers. These powers are those that allowed him and an entire group of island nations prevail in a war against an invading empire, intending to conquer them all, lead by a legendary anti-villainous officer. While the rune brings you, the player, great power, it also consumes your character's life, until you're most likely to die by the end of the game, especially if you are not going to be completely moral. Thus, in order to get the game's true ending, and thus survive the war and your own rune, you must be good, by recruiting every follower available even if they betrayed you before, and even if they tried to assassinate you. Playing the game most of my childhood, I was unconsciously conditioned to understand that being good pays off, and that is a philosophy for life I hold dear to this day. And that is also why I refuse to commit evil , which stems from sacrificing others for one's own gain (even if that gain is pleasure alone) I did not expect, 20 years ago, that my life will be consumed by an illness of my own: chronic fatigue, a post-trauma symptom. Unless I managed to recover from it completely, I won't be surprised if it has the potential to return once more, unlike the Rune of Punishment, which is fortunately far parasitic compared to my own, and in-cure-able. I'm not talking about CFS. The world of Suikoden IV changes by the time your character obtains the rune "by mistake", during a naval battle. Afterwards, some people begin to see you as too hostile, and thus, you are sent to exile with a small team of fellow traitors, who believe in you. It was your own childhood friend, who framed you for murder, even though it was the rune itself, who consumed the life of the previous owner. You are, again, expelled from a ship due to your nationality, by the mercy of its captain . It is on a deserted island, when a monster attacks you, and you have to use the rune in a way that makes you collapse and faint. If it weren't for your followers, you would probably die alone there, unsafe and unprotected from the island's creatures. Although grim a game, this is arguably a game for children, and I'm surprised that Quora has declared an article I wrote previously on the matter, to be for adults. Quite ironic, but I digress. If it weren't for that magical parasite of sorts, you would still have the life you had today, living as a soldier for a nation that provided you with food and shelter. You would still have had your childhood friends, your comrades, and, perhaps, the life on the island village itself. It is, arguably, your "fault", that you got this rune, even though it was completely unintentional, story-wise. By having this unfortunate curse, you were punished for it. In order to survive the game, you must, nonetheless, be merciful to that said friend that framed you for murder; You also must recruit him eventually, or else you will die . Should you be vengeful, and execute him once captured, you will be killed, yourself, by the rune. You will not even be buried, but instead, be sent on a boat as your grave, as that Rune is a parasite that can seek new prey indefinitely. Therefore, in order to prevail your parasite, you must forgive , and you mustn't strive for revenge , EVEN when faced with the option, to execute another potential recruit -- a surrendering commander who occupied your island village. It's only through forgiveness and compassion that your deeds will be paid off in the form of your recovery from the Rune's disastrous impact on your health. The irony of the Cursed Rune lies with the fact that you must go against it, in order to prevail the game in its ending. Be severe with your judgement of those you capture, and your character won't make it. Also, you must not only not execute anyone, but allow killers and mercenaries as well on board, despite trying to execute you themselves. You must understand that even those who went against you can be of service, and that can apply to real life as well. From a trio of thieves who tried scamming you, to an arrogant loner who deceives you for the fun of it, to an assassin that was sent to kill you -- you must accept to recruit anyone that can be recruitable, to survive and to be redeemed by the Rune's powers. Such good-hearted nature, although counter-productive at first, is the best thing you can do in order to get the happy ending your hero can have. In other words, the cure to your parasite's parasitic nature, is forgiveness and compassion to people most humans would treat vengefully or ruthlessly. As I grew up myself, I realized how important it is, to be kind-hearted to those who deserve it . After all, it was a great way to make people understand my medical position at the time. I know that, should I be too much of a jerk, I would let people's negative bias deteriorate, and mislead them, to reach incorrect assumptions towards me. It is easy to devalue someone whom you hate, and thus, in order to be better understood, I chose that game's philosophy: To try and act good as much as possible, for being good can easily pay off than acting bad. This is an extremely difficult task as our emotions can bring harm to others alone. It's easy being a jerk to people who don't know or like, especially online. For most of the time you don't even see their faces, unless they have their own profile picture, or post a video where they visually appear. You don't care for them personally, right? So, the mindset in many people's eyes is, don't care about those who don't know nor owe anything to. However, that treatment is a luxury I refuse to afford, even though I can. Why? Because everyone has their usefulness. And I can build an empire out of goodwill like the game's protagonist built an army out of being moral. Being compassionate goes a long way towards correct estimation of one's situation, as it prevents one from sinking into negative bias. It can also reduce human suffering. Both of which are needed in our world. And all I need to understand that is cognitive empathy. Being good hearted enough can go a long way to make these people understand that you suffer from a certain problem or have a disability. It's also a reason for disabled people, like myself, to act moral, as we need to be understood in order to operate in this world. As you can see, cognition can lead not only to good deeds but also to a better understanding of ourselves and of others. That game's protagonist had followers who chose to be exiled along with himself because the protagonist was good enough as a person in order to earn their trust and loyalty. This helped him to better survive, and thrive, after he began building his morally-backed army. I now understand that earning and preserving power can be done through morality, and as such, power does not always have to corrupt or necessarily stem from corruption . I almost always was a nice person, and maybe it was primarily because of that game, that might've influenced me subconsciously, to be one, before realizing it. Nowadays, the game's story was a moral lesson that, although largely underrated, serves its purpose in my own, Rubinshteinic philosophy , by utilizing egoism for good. We don't have to be nice at all times, but a more compassionate and forgiving attitude, sure helps and increases one's chance to understand and to tolerate others and vice versa.

The Directory: A Story of Logic and Immorality -- Insights On Suikoden V's Cutscene, "Beaver Lodge Under Attack!" How a Game's Plot Improved My Moral Philosophy The Flawed Philosophy of the Hero (And What Can Be Learned From It) Furthermore on Death (And Reincarnation) -- How I Accepted My Death The Fort of Shallow (Poem) Bittersweet Satisfaction -- Settlement with The Inevitable -- A Unique Emotion? Contemplations on "Setsunai" The Mystery of Dreams & What Can We Learn From Them Depth In Simplicity -- Insights From Coin Tossing -- The Philosophy of Simplicity https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-humane-origins-of-corruption-graham-cray-character-analysis (Background music) The Tragic World of the "Child of the Sea God" Troy is a character from Suikoden IV and one of the characters I was most impressed by as a kid. In a way, he is the ultimate anti-villain . He was a villain only because he was with the enemy faction, and nothing more, for he was a moral and noble man. Even when the main antagonists of the game committed genocide against an innocent island nation and even had their own minions there , Troy was the only one in the enemy faction to actually protest against the terrible weapon that was used, a giant beam as destructive as a nuclear weapon. Although portrayed as the key enemy of the game, he is rarely seen throughout the game because he is merely a pawn in a greater scheme and is only mentioned due to his being the main character's nemesis. Furthermore, Sir Troy is an excellent soldier and admiral. Despite his good nature, he followed a code of loyalty to his heartless nation to the point of death. In battle, He is only encountered twice in the game, and arguably he is the only enemy in the entire game who was willing to spare you, the hero. The allies that you happen to fight do not count, even when faced as opponents. In fact, the main reason I'm even bringing this obscure villain up is not because of my adoration for him but because of how he sees death and killing. For "Sir Troy", defeat through death is something honorable, worthy only of opponents who are strong enough to face him and remain formidable. It is a strange form of meritocracy, and a warrior's code . The only reason the game is beaten is because he chose to spare the hero (canonically named Razro) and his companions, when he could've killed them all, here and there, on their first encounter. His reason for this decision was that " the sea will decide their fate " (the game is mostly naval, set around a group of island nations). There was nothing stopping him but his own philosophy. No external resistance, no disobedient soldiers. Only him and "the sea". Whether or not the sea is a divine entity, remains unknown. Apparently, he was so renowned among his nation that he was considered a war hero and has been granted a peculiar title: " The Child of the Sea God ". Who is that "Sea God" entity is unclear, and yet even those who have only heard of Troy knew him by that title. When he tells his henchmen that "the sea will decide their fate", he raises a somewhat religious tone, as if the entire sea is a living entity, a god. Nonetheless, he dislikes being called by the very title he was honored with. This also reveals his modest character. The "Sea God", like with Troy, has spared the protagonist and his followers. Because of that, they eventually managed to build an opposition force, strong enough to defeat the main villain and Troy himself. That also applies to their fleets, which were decimated. The first fight with Troy is the only fight in the game where you are supposed to lose. In some games, you can beat "unbeatable" battles through mostly cheating, but in this game, Troy is the only enemy who, at the time, has infinite health, meaning he cannot be defeated even if you tried. I believe this symbolizes the fact that you are extremely weak against him and are unworthy to be killed by him. See this as an indication of Razro's hero's journey.   As you can see, this code of honor backfires on him, and he accepts it with complete grace . The game's final fight is with him once more. This time, you're fighting against him in his sinking ship, which he sailed as the last man standing. Even when his entire fleet is under the sea and his castle is decimated, he seems untouched by these facts . It could frustrate many other warlords and the like, but not him. This time, you're supposed to win. When defeated, the hero returns to his ship. Then, you are given a final decision -- accept his death or ask him to join you. This is a very dramatic decision, and yet it won't change anything. Even if you ask him to join, he will refuse, for he is a man who knows to accept victory the same way he can accept defeat -- even if it's his death -- with dignity. A true warrior; a naval samurai. He who lives by the blade, dies by the blade, like a samurai, like a ninja . Beyond opposition to the island-destroying weapon mentioned earlier, he shows no regret or protest. If "the sea" or his nation dictates it, he will live or he will die. With his undying loyalty, he serves and accepts his role as a mere pawn, despite his moral greatness. It can be compared to the loyalty of historic and Nationalists Japanese to their Emperor. I was told once by my former master that Socrates used to invent gods when he philosophized. That frustrated the public and the Athenian government. Troy very much reminds me of that eccentric philosopher, being a "ying" to his "yang" in a way. To both, their lives did not matter, for they served a purpose greater than their own , if reality dictates so. For Socrates, it was philosophizing; for Troy, it was war. Ultimately, both died because of their loyalty to the State. Both could've been redeemed, but both refused without protest. For some reason, this "very bad" game appears to teach me a lot. About life, about myself. It made me despise disposability, appreciate the little details, be naive, and strive to be friendly and good. When thinking about that game, it seems that there was only one truly evil villain , while the rest of them were eventually converted to good. One was a coward (Snowe), the other a naive fool (The Governor). A third, an atoner (Sir Troy); and the fourth is a wise old man and his son -- a skeptic of command (Colton and Helmut, who vanished after the war) . A very mysterious game indeed. The "ultimate" villain, the last one whom you need to defeat in order to beat the game, letting his own ship sink, losing himself to the depths of the ocean. Every character in that game appears to have a justification for their villainy or naughtiness, making them not as evil as they seem. Only one, a backstabbing manipulator (Graham Cray), is worthy of being called evil. Perhaps because of that whole experience, I find it extremely difficult to see the evil in humanity. Even when I am told that they are evil, even by my own haters, I still try to reason their motives as if they were characters from that game. When I realize there are at least 3 types of moral evil -- chaotic, neutral, and lawful -- I still can't truly comprehend the concept of evil as something to be condemned without paying full attention to a justifying motive or goal. In the end, I learned from Troy the value of being loyal to a philosophy. He is a self-respecting warrior. He was defeated. Therefore, he must die. Some may call him a fool, for he was given a generous chance of redemption , but he refused it, and that refusal is better than a lifetime of betraying his code, the code of the "Sea God". He was like a loyal husband to it, never betraying. This is how philosophy, even when noble, can be fatal to the one who practices it. Because they should not die by it, they can easily become a hypocrite of their own making. In a way, due to his honor, Troy allowed himself to be drawn to death. When your philosophy kills you, it is problematic. Socrates was loyal to a two-faced society , like Troy was loyal to a dysfunctional, divided empire. Playing so much of this game through childhood, I eventually began speaking and expressing myself in its language by default, inevitably. People called me a robot, a pretender, a bullsh*tter, and a condescending man as a result of that, but in the end, all I did was remain true to my word, as did Sir Troy. When told that the matter has been settled, by the one who beats Troy, Troy says: "Yes, it has. I remained true to myself until the end. I remained A warrior... You have my gratitude". Numerology Analysis by Mr. Roland Leblanc Heth, the letter of transformation, beckons Sir Troy. A test, a trial of mutation, a journey into the All There Is. This is his quest, his Lech Lecha,  a pilgrimage inwards towards the self. As the Child of the Sea God, Sir Troy carries the vastness of the Yam within him. This Yam, the Hebrew word for "sea," symbolizes both the outer world beyond our network of "islands", and the inner depths of existence as well. Sir Troy understands his role as a catalyst, influencing the life purpose of his adversaries while remaining true to his own existence. To master both inner and outer worlds, one must listen to the themes of inspiration, intuition, and even dreams. It is in this balance that true guidance resides in knowing who we really are, and acting true to ourselves like Sir Troy seemingly does. With no denial needed at all!

(Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com ) (Subcategory on Book-Related Content) (Background music) ************************* In Defense of Books - How Reading Perseveres The love of reading endures, thriving not only in Europe but also in the U.S. Whenever I visit websites dedicated to literature, poetry, or perhaps philosophy and psychology – especially the works of Freud and his contemporaries – I'm heartened by the continued interest in these timeless thinkers. The great European philosophers, from the French and German giants of the past to the exiled intellectuals who found refuge in pre-war Paris, never allowed their critical voices to be silenced by the Nazis. (Mr. Rubinshtein's note: Research revealed that a group of writers and academics, called the White Rose movement , indeed opposed the Nazis during WW2 by writing. That is known as clandestine literature . We can infer from this that literature can exist as something elementary even in the most authoritarian of regimes). Today, their works (the timeless thinkers') are being introduced to high school students, planting seeds of intellectual curiosity for those who may pursue further education in philosophy, literature, and any other language, like English. This feels almost revolutionary, in the most delightful way. In my own small way, I encourage everyone to explore their local library. Don't be shy to ask for help – it's okay if it's your first visit, or even if it's been decades. Simply tell the staff your area of interest, and they'll be happy to guide you. If a particular book isn't on the shelves, they can check the system, request it from another library, or even order it for you within a few days. And if you're looking for a specific new release, they can put in a purchase request to the head librarian. Thanks to computers and the internet, libraries have truly become treasure troves of knowledge. It's important to remember that computers and books are not rivals. They occupy distinct niches, each offering unique experiences. The quiet satisfaction of holding a book in your hand, settling into a comfortable chair with a drink, and losing yourself in its pages for hours – there's something irreplaceable about that. And I've heard of inspiring initiatives where older people with failing eyesight learn to read books on computer screens with the help of assistive technology. Personally, I see no need for one to replace the other. They can coexist and complement each other beautifully. I appreciate Mr. Tomasio's efforts make the world still resume reading philosophy and reading in general with his Philosocom website. I offer one last suggestion: If you've accumulated a personal library and find yourself running out of space, please consider sharing your books. Instead of letting them gather dust on your shelves, fill boxes and donate them to charity shops. They'll be delighted to receive these used books, and who knows, you might even discover some new gems on the shelves while you're there. Remember, the joy of reading can be multiplied through sharing. Books have been with us for millennias, weathering the sands of time. And with their enduring power to inspire, inform, and entertain, I believe they have still bright future ahead, due to the reasons I mentioned. Reading can also lead to new connections with other people.

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

(Background music) I do not believe justice exists in this world as much as it can . However, I believe justice can be served not by divine hands, but by mortal hands as well. And I am not talking necessarily or exclusively about exacting revenge . No. I have proven Philosocom's relevance in the embodiment of appreciation throughout the world. People recognize my article empire's worth, and most importantly, its potential. In reality, my attempt to prove mine and this site's relevance was part of a bigger plan. I am not a narcissist who craves validation. Negative. Validation was necessary not for myself, but for you. And we do not live in a vacuum but in an interconnected, universalized culture. I can work on my articles on my lonesome, but I refuse to. For something to be relevant, it must necessarily have relationality to a bigger context. The bigger context is you, the readership. And no, you are not being used. You come and visit this place by your own will, as I know you do because you value my work, and I appreciate it. I am only alive to philosophize because philosophy saved my life once from the depths of existential despair . It was through reason that I was restored back from such void. However, unless I tell you this myself, no one would care. No one would care, because we live in an era of post-truth. And post-truth can make people lonely because it is the truth that can set us free. Through the truth we overcome intolerance , caused by our own emotions, and see the world beyond our platonic impressions. That includes loneliness. The loneliness of ourselves, as well as the loneliness of others. When we are asked for how are we, we are expected to give an answer that would please the asker. And since it is abnormal to not be polite, we are forced by the norms to pretend and mask our true selves in the name of another's feeling. In the name of how reality makes others feel, and not how reality really is. As such, the truth sets us free from the chains of delusion, thus allowing ourselves to relate to others more, and for others, to connect to us. This is why honesty is important in relationships. In reality, there is little to no justice, because truth and justice are interconnected, for truth informs justice. Post-truth leads to misinformation , and thus to a life of delusion, pretentiousness, and loneliness. In reality I only live to philosophize to pay my debt to the world of philosophy for saving my life back then. It only feels true because it's the least I can do for a field many disregard and mock, to the point of claiming it is dead . But still, I don't care what I feel as much, and I don't care as much about philosophy's irrelevancy when it has the power to save lives like it did with my own. For I have a debt to pay for a field that saved me from death. I don't even do it to feel alive or to live. I am only in servitude. A servitude of a lifetime. My desires are irrelevant. It is oh-so unprofessional to not do one's job because one does not feel like it . I do not act on willpower. I act on power and reason. And the reason is that human beings can bring justice to this world, but refuse to, or are unaware that they should, by the reasoning of equality. Karma , whether real or fictional, is something that can be presented through human act. And not only through retribution, but also through empathy , love and compassion . Because if someone is hurt, and have done nothing wrong to deserve it, justice deduces that they need to be shown compassion. But human beings are unjust creatures, because their knowledge and intellect is limited. As does mine, of course. However, intellect shouldn't be underestimated or mistaken for a display of vanity. It should be celebrated as the very tool that can solve problems , increase empathy , and of course, lead to a greater understanding of justice. And justice is about what should be. It is perception that shapes reality by its represented behavior. The more our perceptions are aligned with the truth, the better informed we could be, to better exact justice into this world, and as such, be more fair to others and ourselves. I am indebted to philosophy for life because it saved my life. I am owed what was saved. That's how debt works. Had it not saved me, I would've died. I don't feel anything about it. I just know what needs to be done, by my own intellect. And intellect is but a tool in reality. It's the very salvation of much of human suffering in this world, and much justice can be given to the things and beings who need it. And without the understanding truth bestows on us, we might as well forever be doomed to repeat the same actions that serve as obstacles in our path. To be able to show compassion, one must understand another's situation. And to be compassionate, is to share one's current position, even if by cognition/intellect alone. One must also desire to reduce it. No one shares my experience with me. No matter how many people are there, reading me, or being in my personal life, no one understands or asks me about it. I am shown respect and admiration, which I appreciate. But they are no substitute for sharing my pain. The pain that I could've died by nihilistic despair. Because for that one needs compassion. My contributions to the global legacy of philosophy is how I display my sincerest thankfulness. Knowing my prevented fate, and remembering it ever since, made me a broken man . I see no other reason to live, for I already know the reason as to why I still live. And that is the hypocrisy that lies in many human companies. The fakeness, and the delusion runs deep, merely because many lack the intellect to relate to another. We think we are with one another, but as long as we remain ignorant of our authentic selves, we will fail understanding others as well as ourselves. Lonely or not, I have a debt to pay. It will end when my life ends. That is the rationality of justice, unhindered by norms nor by post-truth. I tried pursuing other activities over the years. They are in vain. Very few people can understand me empirically. I am repaying what I was saved, with what was saved. I don't care about being happy or joyful. I live to repay, and in death that repayment will be paid in full, per what was saved, and therefore, given. And justice is that severe, as logic itself. Such is even more the justice of eternal debt.

(Background music) (Philosocom's Subcategory On the Past) "Philosocom is the brainchild of Tomasio Rubinshtein whom I met many years ago. Those who will tell my story, will tell that I got to walk among one of the giants of philosophy. From Socrates to Martha Nussbaum " -- Mr. Daniel Paez. The Past: The Graveyard of Time, Launching Base of Actions The past is the ultimate graveyard. Every whisper of a moment, every grand event, every tear and triumph - all lie under the inevitable possibility of becoming but yet another relic, whether remembered or forever forgotten within its shadows, never to be revived again. The present moment, a fragile candle flame, dances dynamically and chaotically between the devouring teeth of the past, and the uncertain fog of war of the future. Everything that is happening, everything that will ever happen, will logically conclude to a singular, inevitable fate: becoming forever buried in the vast cemetery of history. And it's only a question is whether or not your fair shares in that cemetery will be visited as often, or be forever left to rest in the peacefulness, and irrelevancy, of obscurity. This universal march towards this only chronological certainty, intensifies with each passing year, as more and more things and beings fall into obscurity, in their own ways. And death is the definitive part of it, as a point of no return. How come? Fail proving your worth to the world, or not try doing so at all, and you have sealed the obscure fate of the legacy that is your life. Death is the defining part of how you will be remembered by others. This means that every moment of your life, might as well count to that definitive conclusion, and the implications that may result from it. Contribute more, and your name will be something to be proud of, by those whom are related to you, or those who have acknowledged you. Cause more harm than good, and those who are related to you, whether by blood or otherwise, might forever disdain and be ashamed of being part of your presence in any way. Thus, morality can play a great part in the past, and in how some aspects of it -- including your own -- will be perceived by the world. And although you cannot control the choice of perception in others, being alive allows you to alter it through the power of making an impact and through influence. The older we become, the vaster the bigger the past that grows behind us, gathering the actions that we've done, and their impact on the world for days and even years to come. This is the cruel truth of time's passage: there is no escape from the endless collection of the past. Presidents and immigrants, sages and lol-cows , all find their destinies gathered upon the same timeless gravestone -- the past. And it is from this abstract gravestone, the past, where both present and future launches, to whatever destinations, based on our actions and behaviors. And the greater our influence, the more involved you can get, at the shaping of this global ecosystem, to further be of your design, of your mark. Imagine the past as a colossal factory grinder, its iron jaws chomping relentlessly on every second that has slipped through our fingers. Yet, although it makes every existing moment a past reminder, the past is not without its firm grip on anything that might and will happen. Thus powerful is the past in the determination and of everything possible. The past forms landscapes of nostalgia that glorify what once was, and lament of what could've been avoided, with regret. The longer an era stretches behind us, the more remote it becomes, its borders fading into the mist of memory, preserved only through genetics , media and other remains that themselves can be forever gone from this world. Our descendants may walk those paths again, but for us, they are forever lost, although serving our lifeforms, in our very genes. Countless collaborations and conflicts of actions mark the beings that we have become today, and the beings that we might become. These collaborations involve countless bodies and people we might as well never even get to think about. But should we ever bother to consider them, perhaps this existence would be seen by us as far more valuable than otherwise... My Chronological Graveyard My own personal graveyard house consists of old consoles, forgotten discs whispering lost melodies of adventure. Some of them are now immortalized this site's articles.  A particular game comes to mind, with its hero, forever considered in my heart, partially the inspiration of the man I today became. It is through the art of being alone , that I am capable of much work. My greatest strength which can fuel an industrial complex of my plan to preserve and promote my philosophical legacy. And there is no legacy without preservation of the past. In this waltz with time, we are all dancers, swept along by the relentless rhythm of the universe, dancing through uncertainty, and yet, still try to build plans for a future we can never truly determine as certain. Those unable or unwilling to plan for the long term, embrace the bittersweet symphony of experience, as their hearts are built and broken in the name of either love , hedonism , or impulsivity . How to Accept the Fading of Experience We are all either victors or victims with the bittersweet, chaotic reality of time's passage, which is not only prone to actions, but to the various changes that may stem from it, as well. The past stretches behind us like a fading trail of an always-regenerating bridge towards an inevitable end in a vastly-empty universe. Every sunrise marks another array of potential, which I practically regard as a "problem" , while every sunset whispers of what could've been, and never was, and at times, will never get to be again. The desire to defy this universal law of chaos is undeniable in some, for it is a threat to their psychological safety . Dreams of immortality dance before our eyes of an ideal world, forever remaining in the realm of fantasy. And what of time travel? With all of its potential horrors that I found in my contemplations , wouldn't a chance to replay past moments, rewrite mistakes, or relive forgotten joys be an eternal relief to the disturbed minds of many? Yet, these solutions remain nothing more than ideals we can never claim for our own. Science fiction may entertain us with visions of defying time's straight-forward arrow... But at least for now, they are just that - stories told in media of both traditional and anarchistic nature . In the harsh light of present reality, we acknowledge the truth: The past, once engraved, cannot be altered. I digress, but the few exceptions are re-edits of articles like this, and other such works where renovation is included. And some things, and people , are beyond repair. Yet, the past's hands extend beyond grand historical events. It resides in the quiet corners of personal narratives , forever embedded in the present, in one way or another. The answer to the lost cause of the past, lies in embracing the transient nature of experience, and the fact that it is always built on the past events, and past forces, which can be anyone, and anything. Recognizing the sanctity of memory , can enhance life with beauty , a reminder to savor the present moment before it too fades into the tapestry of the past. Accepting the past, and moving on, doesn't erase its impact. Denying that past and even minimizing its true influence on us, as enticing as it may be, would be to deny a part of ourselves. Instead, the past is an ever-expanding mine of gold whose insights we can always dig, by being strong enough to face its adversity and a desire to once again rejoice in its memories. The past, may someday extinguish the light of our world, until every memory and every human and their legacies are gone for good... Until the curtains fall, let us appreciate the ever-changing build-up of life, with all of its laughter and tears , triumphs and regrets, for they are subject not only to the past but to our perception, and thus, to their future developments, through our represented actions, and combined forces. How to Value the Fleeting Dance of Experience To blame the immortal power of the past on our temporary lives, feels futile. For we cannot cheat its spell. We can learn to embrace its rhythm, or whine as we persist in telling ourselves how powerless we are, even though we're capable of more. In this sense, the past becomes a double-edged sword. For those who have lived lives rich in joy and wonder, there is a bittersweet tragedy in its fading glory. For those burdened by hardship, the past holds the solace of knowing the worst has passed, and in the future, that it will all end some day, and the pain -- the pain will stop. Let us not cling too tightly to the echoes of yesterday, while we ignore the melody of the present it unfolds before us. Each moment, contains a degree of potential, unavailable if it weren't for the past. Thus, cherishing the present, embracing its fleeting beauty, is the key to enriching the memories we create, and a better future, for either ourselves, those we care about, or both. The cycle of experience is a continuous one that begins and ends with us . Your joys and sorrows, your triumphs and defeats, are but variations on a theme that has been played out countless times before. We are our own historians, should we possess enough power over our lives from the external forces that are involved in it. To expect absolute understanding from those who have walked different paths is a recipe for disappointment, for most might as well not possess such foresight. Instead, focus on what you can control and influence in the name of better making your dreams as close to reality as possible. That way you would, at a later date, look at the past and won't regret it as much.

(Background music) Subcategory Directory https://www.philosocom.com/post/a-return-to-the-darker-past https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-rubinshteinic-technique-to-deal-with-the-past-for-a-better-future https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-past https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-lapse-fallacy-why-time-doesn-t-matter-much-in-logic-philosophy https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-sanctity-of-memory Away From The Hermitic Philosopher -- A Very Mysterious Storytime Through A Former Friend's Perspective On Philosocom's True Master... My Mysterious Late Grandmother, Esther Drucker https://www.philosocom.com/post/had-to-be https://www.philosocom.com/post/historical-influence ) Synopsis by Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein (The Article's Author): On Diggin' Up Bones is about acknowledging the influence of subjectivity and employing certain cognitive strategies, allow us to begin untangling the truth from the distortions of the past. This allows us to gain a deeper understanding of our experiences, fostering personal growth and a more nuanced appreciation for the world around us. Embracing the different experiences of human subjectivity empowers us to see the world through our unique lens, while remaining open to the possibility of broader truths. It's through this exploration that we can truly arrive at a more authentic and meaningful understanding of ourselves. The Past: A Concept Lost In Understanding The biblical proverb of Isaiah 43:18-19 , " Forget the former things; do not dwell on the past " rings true. However, I'd like to criticize that overlooks a crucial aspect: the past's relevance isn't fixed, and that the past is often worth dwelling on, in our journey towards self-knowledge and towards intersubjective understanding. Our understanding of the past is dynamic as it is personal. It's shaping us while being susceptible to our interpretations, which may either minimize certain events, or blow them out of proportions. As such a simple visit to the doctor can be difficult for the socially-anxious, but a granted notion for the calmer mind. This subjectivity creates a dilemma not everyone sees: How do we discern the past's true value when emotions and biases cloud our judgment? The ease with which we discard or cling to the past highlights this challenge, as our perception of the past depends on the emotional value we attribute to it. To assume that others hold the same, or even similar value to certain past events, would be a mistake in human understanding. That's because different people perceive reality differently, and with the delusion of knowledge , they may only prevent themselves from containing the different understanding of others. Therefore, the value we attribute to events, worth often hinges on personal perception, making universal conclusions elusive, and ourselves, lonelier than we might come to realize. To ease the suffering of loneliness, bridging the gap between perceptions , through peace exchange of ideas, is crucial for the overall reduction of the pain, associated with being misunderstood. Overlooking or undervaluing past events can distort our self-worth and hinder self-discovery. Furthermore, doing so can hinder us from appreciating others, and understanding them better. The negativity bias can make us underestimate the true value of our talents, disregarding our accomplishments while holding our past misfortunes, like traumas, in higher regard. Reflecting on our past with the strawman's fallacy in our way of thinking, can disregard certain people who could become unnecessary problems in our future. Think of a defeat at the hands of a competitor. Underestimate their value, and you might be defeated once more. A pivotal event, if disregarded, hinders our understanding of ourselves in relation to it. A minor event, if highly regarded, can distract us from more important matters, which may require our thinking for the sake of our future and of our ambitions. Therefore, failing to grasp the true value of a past experience, in relations to our plans, can lead to self-deception, by a potentially distorted past. While all subjective perception can be regarded as equal , and therefore worthy of its redemption, a more critical sight of the past can lead us to make better decisions. Decisions, that we might not regret choosing. As such, our subjective perception, regardless of its legitimacy, deserves to be criticized purely from a functional standpoint. This is why introspection regarding the past is crucial: It allows us to move beyond the mere events and delve into our current perception of them. We should be able to compare different perceptions in order to extend our current perception. Doing so can put things into clearer proportions, and serve as a counter-act against our confirmation bias . We can use such comparison of perception for greater emotional practicality, allowing us to better supervise our emotions, and lead to greater peace of mind. Doing so can also help us let go of events that bother us so much , and cause us unnecessary grief as a result. This critical process can start from two questions: What can I do to better understand what I went through? And, How can I view the past in a way that would cause me far less impractical suffering, far less burden? By acknowledging the interplay between subjectivity and external reality , we can navigate this complexity in a more mature way. Understanding the present lens through which we view the past empowers us to study its true value, fostering a more in-depth and authentic understanding of ourselves, of others, and of reality in general.   The Warped Mirror of Memory Our past shapes who we are, even our shared origins. However, how much can we really trust our memories?  Notions like the nostalgia bias can make past events seem more or less important than they actually were to us at the time we experienced them. This can make it tough to figure out who we really are,  because our identity is built on things that can be hard to measure in the absence of critical thinking. Unlike money, which has a set value,  the value of a past event is constantly changing. A big deal at the time might become insignificant later, just a small moment can turn into a cherished memory. Our perception is that fluid, and often, so our sense of self. This can be seen in Ms. Panama Dusa's article on Philosocom. And I quote:  If identity is an imaginary construct, and names are arbitrary words, then your name can be Hitler or Snoopy and it wouldn't matter. But names do matter. They should matter. Names are important because we are important. When people tell you that you don't matter then it feels like your name shouldn't matter either. So how do we figure out who we are, if our past is a blurry mess?   The answer is to accept that our memories aren't perfect. The key is to be aware of this and try to see the past for what it really was. The important thing is to understand how the past has affected us, even if our memories aren't 100% accurate, and see how we can grow. By doing this, we can build a stronger sense of who we are, which in turn can contribute to demonstrating what we believe we can do. Do not forget yourself in the bigger picture you're examining. Not doing so, can be compared to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

(Philosocom's Directory on Culture) (Philosocom's John Igwe and Co. Articles) (Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Freedom) (Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com) Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right that allows individuals to express their opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation, censorship, or legal repercussions. It's a cornerstone of democratic societies and is often protected by laws , constitutions, or international agreements. The right to free speech encompasses various forms of expression, including spoken words, written communication, artistic expression, and symbolic actions. Culture and speech are intricately connected, with language serving as a primary vehicle for transmitting cultural values, norms, and traditions. Speech patterns, dialects, and expressions often reflect the cultural beliefs, societal hierarchies, and historical contexts of a community. Cultural norms influence not only the language used but also the non-verbal aspects of communication, like body language, gestures, and social etiquettes, which differ significantly across cultures. Additionally, the language itself can shape the way people perceive and understand the world , affecting their thoughts, behaviors, and interactions within a particular cultural context Meanwhile, cancel culture refers to the widespread practice of publicly shaming, boycotting, or ostracizing individuals or entities for behavior or opinions deemed offensive, controversial, or unacceptable . It often plays out on social media platforms and involves a collective effort by a group of individuals to hold others accountable for their actions or statements. Cancel culture has complex implications for freedom of speech . While freedom of speech is a fundamental right that allows individuals to express their opinions without censorship or retaliation from the government, cancel culture operates within societal or community-driven consequences for speech or actions deemed unacceptable. Here are some ways cancel culture can influence freedom of speech: Chilling Effect: Cancel culture can create a chilling effect on free speech. Individuals might self-censor to avoid potential backlash, fearing that expressing certain opinions or ideas could result in public shaming, ostracization, or even loss of employment. Diverse Perspectives: Cancel culture often targets speech or actions considered offensive or harmful to marginalized groups . While this can be a positive force for social change by holding individuals or entities accountable, it could potentially limit open discussions if controversial topics or diverse perspectives are stifled for fear of being canceled. Mob/Herd Mentality: In some cases, cancel culture operates through mass public outcry, often on social media. This collective and at times aggressive response can swiftly and severely impact the livelihoods and reputations of individuals without due process or room for discussion and learning. Cancel culture has prompted a heightened sense of responsibility and accountability among individuals, public figures, and organizations. While it has its drawbacks, it also plays a role in holding people accountable for their actions or statements. Here's how it influences responsibility and accountability: Social Awareness: Cancel culture has increased awareness about the impact of words and actions. Individuals and entities are more conscious of how their behavior might affect others, particularly marginalized or underrepresented groups. Consequences for Actions: Cancel culture often leads to consequences for behavior or statements that are deemed offensive or harmful. This serves as a form of accountability, indicating that there are repercussions for actions that negatively impact others. Ethical Considerations: People are now more inclined to consider the ethical implications of their actions. They are forced to reflect on the potential repercussions of their behavior, statements, or decisions in a more socially conscious manner. Accountability in Public Discourse: Cancel culture has pushed for increased accountability in public discourse. It has led to demands for transparency, honesty , and responsibility from public figures and organizations. Cultural Shift: It's prompted a cultural shift where certain behaviors or statements that were previously normalized or overlooked are now being called out and addressed, fostering a more accountable society. Change in Policies and Practices: Companies and institutions are reevaluating their policies and practices to ensure they align with more responsible and inclusive standards, responding to the growing accountability demands. While responsibility and accountability are essential, there are concerns about the extreme nature of cancel culture. It's vital to strike a balance, ensuring that while individuals are held accountable, there's room for growth, education , and forgiveness . A system that allows for learning from mistakes while discouraging repeated harmful behavior can contribute to a healthier and more productive social environment. Limits on Innovation and Creativity: Fear of being canceled might dissuade artists, creators, and innovators from pushing boundaries or exploring controversial or challenging themes. This self-censorship can stifle creativity and limit the exploration of new ideas. (Mr Rubinshtein's Note: This may apply in philosophy as well ) Cancel culture's impact on innovation and creativity can be multifaceted. While it's important to hold individuals and entities accountable for their actions and encourage responsible behavior, the fear of being "canceled" can potentially limit the freedom and boldness necessary for true innovation and creative exploration in the following ways: Risk-Aversion: Creativity often thrives on pushing boundaries and exploring new ideas, even if they're controversial or challenge societal norms. Fear of backlash might make artists, writers, or innovators more risk-averse, leading them to stick to safer, more conventional topics and approaches. This avoidance of risk could stifle groundbreaking or provocative ideas. (Mr. Rubinshtein's note: Risk-Aversion exists in many areas of our lives . That is because we have things to lose ). Self-Censorship: The fear of being ostracized or facing severe consequences for expressing unconventional or controversial thoughts can lead individuals to self-censor. This self-imposed limitation might prevent the exploration of ideas that could potentially lead to groundbreaking innovations or paradigm shifts. Artistic and Cultural Expression: Creativity in art, literature, film, and other cultural expressions often involves delving into sensitive or contentious topics. Cancel culture's impact might discourage artists from exploring these themes, leading to a lack of thought-provoking or boundary-pushing work. Stifling Dialogue and Critique: Constructive criticism and open dialogue are crucial for growth in creative fields. Cancel culture's swift and sometimes harsh repercussions can hinder constructive critique, potentially leading to an environment where genuine learning and improvement are sacrificed in favor of avoiding public outrage. Compliance over Authenticity: Some individuals may opt for conformity over authenticity to avoid the risks associated with expressing unconventional or controversial ideas. This prioritization of avoiding backlash may limit the authenticity and uniqueness of creative expressions. However, Innovation and creativity often thrive in environments that encourage risk-taking, exploration, and the expression of diverse ideas. Final Words Striking a balance between accountability and preserving the freedom necessary for innovative thinking remains a significant challenge in such environments. It pushes individuals and organizations to be more thoughtful and responsible in their actions, considering the potential impact on others. While this can be positive, it might also deter necessary conversations about challenging or controversial topics, although such conversations may be necessary. It can influence the nature of public discourse. It could potentially polarize discussions by shutting down opposing viewpoints rather than engaging in constructive debate, thereby hindering opportunities for education, understanding, and growth. In summary, while cancel culture can hold individuals accountable for their actions and statements, there are concerns about how it might stifle open dialogue, limit diverse viewpoints, and discourage the free exchange of ideas. It's a complex balance between accountability and freedom of expression, and the challenge lies in finding a middle ground that promotes responsibility without suppressing essential freedoms. Extra Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/05/19/americans-and-cancel-culture-where-some-see-calls-for-accountability-others-see-censorship-punishment/ Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback: Cancel culture should really do nothing more than helping people how to frame stuff better. If someone can take offense by what you say then there must be a better way to get your thoughts across. Fear of cancel culture should only make us more conscious of our actions. You can do great things if you don’t live in fear of it. Just make sure the resulting expressions are examples of something rather than stand alone problems. Easiest way to avoid cancel culture is to have individuals, random people, peer review your work before it is released to the public. In art this can be done in the form of a private soft opening to a gallery. Your own cognitive reality might make you blind to certain things, so it’s important to confide with people who don’t have this blindness. Just because you yourself think something is great can blind you to any parts that may be problematic. Humans are nit-picking creatures so would you rather have the public do it or close friends? Another suggested fix to cancel culture would be to push the boundaries but be introverted while doing it, get friends and family members opinions on how to best present it to the world. Cancel culture really boils down to people who fail to frame things properly. Too many people fall victim to the “look what I did” fallacy. Yes, it's not a known one. People do or learn amazing things and instinctively want to run out and tell the world about it. Thus, they open the pandora's box of cancel culture. If you don’t want to worry about people framing what you are presenting in the wrong way then make sure you are the one who controls the way that it is seen.

(Philosocom Writing Directory) Article Synopsis by Mr. O. C. Isaac The article "The Importance of Fans to Heritage (And the Works of a Hermit Ancestor)" is a thought-provoking reflection on the role of fandom in preserving and amplifying creative work. It is divided into distinct sections, including the discussion on fandom, tips on nurturing fans , and a personal story about the philosopher's ancestor and his eccentric mentality. This structure balances theory with personal narrative, making the article both informative and emotionally resonant. The central argument that fans are crucial in preserving and promoting creative legacies is communicated clearly, with the anecdote about the game translation highlighting the power of a passionate fanbase. The author incorporates deeper philosophical musings about the nature of fandom, loyalty, and legacy, elevating the piece beyond a mere opinion article. The personal story of the author's grandfather serves as a poignant case study that reinforces the article's message, making the theoretical points about the importance of sharing one's work with the public more tangible and relatable. Overall, this article presents a unique blend of personal narrative and philosophical reflection on the role of followers/fans/supporters in sustaining a creative legacy. Its emotional depth, paired with thoughtful insights into fandom, makes it both engaging and meaningful. (Background music) Fans: The Importance of Having Them In 2012, nine years ago as of this article's original release, a game from an internationally-known series was released to the public. However, it was only released locally, and in Japanese. That meant that, if you did not know Japanese, you had no ability to play that game properly, as everything was in Japanese, with no clue to any international language. However, in October 2021, a union of fans of that game's series decided to unofficially translate that game to English , and if it weren't for them, that game would've remained in Japanese indefinitely. As a fan of that series myself, I could not expose myself to that game without trying to learn Japanese, which is a very hard language to learn. In other words, thanks to the fact that this franchise had fans, they were willing, eventually, to join hands, and work on a voluntary project to expose something to the entire English-speaking world. This is what's so great about having fans or followers They will be willing to sacrifice some of their time and energy to help your work whether or not you asked them to. By their own will. Because they care about it, and hold it dear to their hearts. They are, in no way, minions or subordinates (for they are paid), but volunteers who volunteer not out of entitlement but out of love for the original work they have been consuming, following, and thinking about. Therefore, if you wish to increase the probability of your work being preserved and shared for years to come, you must build a fanbase . They are people who either love you or your work (or both, but not necessarily . You do not have to love Michael Jackson in order to love his music, for example). Fans are loyal followers who may or may not also pay you for your work. They are the key to turn you from someone who does things as a volunteer, like art or music, into a fully fledged job. They are, in other words, your key to be able to quit that job you hate, and focus on your craft professionally. How Are Fans Recruited? They are not recruited. They come by their own desire , and if capable and willing enough, they might also create fan-based work based on the content you have provided. By being inspired by it through their separate work, they can drive traffic to your own work as a result. I guess it is a form of indirect brand awareness. Fan art, fan games, fan films -- you name it. The same applies to philosophy and philosophers. If people think that your work as a philosopher is worthy enough to be appreciated, they might become your fans, or at least consider it. Once they reach a state of fandom, they could be of use in your own work. Fans are not necessarily social media followers. Anyone can just click a "follow" button. However, it does not have to be black or white, either. Fandom comes from the heart, from genuine desire. They are the original definition of followers before the first social media platform began (AKA SixDegrees.Com in 1997). They're something I call "Elite" followers. There is something called silent fans, people who consume your content without necessarily interacting with you. Thus, different content creators, including me, might have fans that we are unaware of due to their lack of interaction. It isn't something bad at all, because in fandom, everything is voluntary. With no force applied at all by the content maker. Unless there are copyright violations? Anyhow, perhaps they won't do anything at all that's visible. But the fact that they consume your content is something that should not go unappreciated. Perhaps they will contribute one day, perhaps not at all, and perhaps they will chat about your content with other people, thus making them fans, too. Tip For Preserving Fans As said, fandom comes from the heart. Don't force your fans to do anything, because otherwise you would alienate them. You can request or ask, but definitely not demand. They might even pay for your work, but they will never be forced by you to do so. A forced volunteer is an oxymoron. You can't force a volunteer the same as you can't force someone to honestly be your fan. I guess you can force people to be your customers but why extort your fans (or anyone for that matter) ? Remember, fans are essentially voluntary admirers. If they believe that they should abandon you, they might as well do so. I wouldn't recommend nagging, either, but I guess it's up to you to decide. I usually nag only when something's urgent... Which is never. Try to not be excessive in your approach to fans , you might lose them unintentionally. By the way, that's not uncommon as you may think, and even world-renowned figures may have people stop being fans. You are merely a "means" of "transportation" , metaphorically-speaking -- producing and distributing content. Once they reach a possible state of progress in their lives, renunciation of loyalty might be possible. It's not necessarily something bad, especially if you've done nothing wrong. More will go, and more will come in their stead. Let Go. My Late Grandfather -- The Unknown Writer Finally, I would like to speak about someone who remained unknown all his life, and thus his work remained in the shadows until now. My deceased grandfather, A hermetic ancestor, was also a writer, and I was told he wrote on his computer occasionally. He wrote mostly poems and also translated the works of others to various languages. He was a very romantic person, as far as I heard. Despite his burning passion, his works have remained in my family in the form of unpublished, printed folders. He was offered to use the internet, but I guess he was too fearful of that new feat of technology. I can only wager he had cyberphobia. You won't find his works online, and if you find others by that name, that's not him. His only public presence is his grave. I'm using this very personal example to show you what unfortunately happens to the heritage of people who refuse to open themselves to the public . Of people who aren't open to the possibility of fans/followers/customers. If the old, weird Hermit resisted his fear of the internet, he wouldn't have had to think about the expansive possibility of publishing his works in the form of books (assuming he had), and he could've been a known personality today. His legacy, his "empire", might as well remain a paper collection of folders, kept by a daughter. As a philosopher, I seek regular readers, whom I identify as "fans". Unlike others, I don't seek validation of my ego. I don't need to be validated as much as others. I seek to expand my contribution to this world. That's why the subject of fanbase/fandom matters to me. If I were a private philosopher or someone who would not publish their findings, then I would minimize this notion. Thus, I would not be surprised if the purpose of this piece is irrelevant to some of you, who are not interested in the power of fandom to help you support and promote whatever legacy you're building. All you need is to not be afraid to open up through means that could grant you much benefit. Going outside of your comfort zone is imperative to your success. His greatest mistake as a writer was to not go out of his comfort zone. Conclusion Fans are the flame that keeps your work alive. They translate obscure games, write fan fiction, and ensure your legacy lives on. Embrace them, for they are a lively, willing bridge between your creation and the world. Nurture this connection, and do not exploit it. and together, you can ensure your work continues to inspire and resonate for years to come, if not long after your own death! Extra: A Note To A Dead Man Grandfather, I have learned from you, but I will work to not end up like you did, as a writer! The internet has given me exposure you never had in your entire lifetime, and for that, I'm sorry for the untapped potential that you have refused to realize. You could even have reached far more audiences due to your knowledge of different languages. But alas, you refused to think about the digital world, even though you were offered it. You wrote on the computer, but refused to use the internet. Your addiction to the love of solitude was your fault. I'm sorry for your legacy. Ancestor. I'm not sorry for you. I am sorry for your legacy. I can understand why you were not as liked as a person.

(2023 Note: Now that I compared myself to other autists, I've realized I have Asperger's Syndrome, which can be considered part of ASD, or the Autism Spectrum Disorders. I, however, am no longer sure if I am indeed an autist, even though I was diagnosed with both Asperger's and ASD. Please, take this article with a grain of salt, as I expect you to do, with any of my articles). (Philosocom's Directory On Uniqueness) Whether they like it or not, some people are their own worst enemies. No matter how much they desire to be kind and appealing, society will treat them like dirt beneath their feet. They will do this, whether or not they are aware of the first sentence of this article. Many of them are outsiders. Perhaps all of them are. An outsider is someone who doesn't belong to a particular group or community. It is important to note that belonging to a community "on paper", or officially, is not necessarily enough. To be a part of a community, one must be accepted. One must have an identity, and feel like they are a part of it. If you are in class during recess, and the rest of your classmates play outside with little regard for you, then you are likely an outsider. It doesn't matter that you are also part of the class. A community and a social category are not the same thing. Social communication is just a specific type of human interaction. A social category categorizes people by stereotypes. People with glasses are a part of a social category. There isn't necessarily a community of glasses-wearers, just because there are people wearing glasses. The same goes for a global autistic community , which I once heard exists. If you are born with autism and are diagnosed with it, it doesn't mean you are now officially a member of a global group. There may be local or smaller communities of autistic people, but don't expect these communities to necessarily be a part of a global-wide organization. Most importantly, don't expect all autists to not be outsiders in such groups. The point I'm trying to make is that some people are outsiders by nature, and may have their own reasons to be "part" of something larger. I'm also part of communities across the internet, but I have my own interests. Just like some of you may have an interest to read this website. Perhaps, in many cases, the most important thing is family. For many, family can be a more secure stronghold for support. There may be internal conflicts, and you may be banished from your own family. However, it's imperative to have a basic, strong base of loyalty . Loyalty with people you can trust. Loyalty with those who are willing to be discreet, as treachery is humiliating for them. Some people are vagabonds. I'm currently friends with one, but I nowadays value discretion. They do not necessarily have homes or people for them. They may sleep in the streets, in the cold, and be woken up by gangs. I am a solitary person by nature, but it seems that vagabonds are prone to far greater solitude than I am. People have interests, and when I say it, I refer to their own gain. They may pretend to be someone else in order to achieve their ambitions. Politics may work that way, you know. Seeking political alliances not because of friendship, but because of business. And business is unwise when it is done with personal sentiments. I have learned that since the foundation of Philosocom. My deceased grandfather, who was a weird hermit ancestor, was the biggest outsider I knew. He was a good-intentioned man, but he was too eccentric to be able to communicate normally. After his funeral was over, no one really mourned him. I do not remember his face anymore, because some autistic people struggle with face-recognition. Even though he called me a retard as a kid, I heard he loved me and even brought some food after I was born, to celebrate. I am also an outsider. Life has made me, slowly, a cold and distant man. As an adult, I do not receive affection often, and when I do, it feels strange. It's not strange when it comes to my cat. It feels strange when it comes from people. But, as the Former Secretary to the Government of India, Dr. S. K. Pachauri , said to me: "It is gratifying to learn that, in spite of so many impediments & roadblocks in your health condition , you are still driving the car of a happy life at a normal speed." Why? Because I believe in what I am able to deliver. And so can you. Enjoy some sources: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/outsider https://study.com/learn/lesson/social-category-overview-examples.html https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/community https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/people-autism-may-have-large-deficits-facial-recognition/

(More articles I wrote on spirituality: https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-third-eye https://www.philosocom.com/post/issues-with-spirituality) (Background music) *************************** How Randomness Meets Reality in Tarot Readings As I explored in a previous article, the arcane holds a curious allure . It is one I even used for the production of a miniseries on true love. It could indicate hidden connections ( hence, arcane ), embedding everyday anecdotes with a sense of cosmic significance, possibly suggesting a deterministic hand weaving the tapestry of our lives. This fascination led me to delve deeper, enrolling in various courses online, most notably one on Tarot reading. I managed to get a Tarot Master certificate earned through studying a recorded course of a spiritual polymath . Eventually I tried practicing tarot reading myself based on what I studied. I shuffled and reshuffled the cards, drawing them at random, both individually and in specific spreads. With each card revealed, regardless of its suit or orientation, an uncanny resonance echoed within me. Each image seemed to hold a mirror to my current circumstances, or perhaps even hinted at veiled possibilities in the future. This recurring pattern sparked a realization: humans, in our inherent complexity, are intricate complexes, built from diverse materials of genetics, personality, inclinations, and experiences. This very complexity allows us to find connections, however weak, between ourselves and anything seemingly random, as long as we're willing to weave the narrative for our own favor. And whether or not that narrative even exists is not quite logical as tarot is based on intuition, not on logic. The problem with intuition comes when we rely on it exclusively, without a shred of doubt, leading us to commit confirmation bias. And I quote from Situational Awareness Matters : "It is the facts and data that prove if the gut feeling is right or wrong. ...High consequence environments, when you have that euphoric feeling that everything is going well in a time compressed, high consequence environment, you need to make sure your intuition is right." The power of the tarot, then, lies not in predicting the future or revealing some absolute truth, but in its ability to act as a catalyst for introspection. It nudges us to contemplate the tapestry and identify recurring patterns and themes, and to perhaps even envision potential paths forward. The cards themselves are mere symbols, devoid of objective meaning ( whose existence is proven by the strawman's fallacy ). It is our own minds, with their inherent capacity for association and narrative construction, that breathe life into them, transforming them into mirrors reflecting our inner landscapes, reflecting more on ourselves rather than external reality, which depends on our individual emotions, far, far less. In this way, the tarot becomes a tool for self-discovery, and a potent reminder that the most profound truths often lie not in external validation , but within the depths of our own being. So, while the conformity to arcane pronouncements may remain prone to attack by evidence, the value of their invitation to self-exploration is undeniable. Which of course could indicate what I wrote several times, which is the fact that human beings are not logical by default and may need to learn how to become more logical beings. That is while the external world, even though we're a part of it, is composed of logic, or more specifically, the representation of mathematics and their interactions with one another. Unveiling the Illusion of Arcane Causality In the realm of the arcane a bizarre (or even "arcane") phenomenon unfolds. We draw connections between the seemingly random and the deeply personal, as if they are necessarily related . We embed symbols with meaning, forging a sense of "destiny" from the shuffled deck or toasts with a certain shapes . But beneath this alluring mystique lies a subtle illusion: the causal fallacy, also known as the questionable cause. The core of this fallacy lies in our tendency to perceive correlation as causation. If, upon uncovering a tarot card that resonates with our current state, we declare it a "sign,", without any questioning whatsoever, we've succumbed to this illusion. The card, no matter how evocative, is not the cause of our circumstances, but merely a reflection of what we feel and/or think. This isn't limited to the arcane. Practices like gematria, assigning numerical values to words and letters, can lead us down the same path. We begin to see significance in seemingly mundane details, our names and occupations transformed into symbols of universal mechanisms. This "divine," as some call it, can be God, Jesus, or Allah, depending on our cultural lens (even logos, which is the origin of logic, can also mean, " universal divine reason "). But here's the critical point: Attributing meaning doesn't erase nor "changes" the truth by itself. Cause and effect, though often intertwined, are not always linear. Not every action has a singular, predetermined outcome. Truth and significance, while intertwined in philosophical discourse, are not synonymous. Take the example of this article. Written (originally at least) at 4:02 AM, the time might seem significant, linked to the card " The Lovers " by the sum of its digits. But could I not have written it at any other hour, achieving the same response? In a parallel universe, does the time of publication truly alter the article's impact? Why this specific set of time necessitates insights I can give at any time of the day? The answer is that there is no universal necessity between symbolism and what they aim to represent, meaning they do not always have exclusive representation . Of course the Swatzika symbolizes nazism, but the fact that we associate the swatizka with nazism does not mean it does not represent other things as well, such as the Jain symbol from Jainism. Conversly, other symbols also represent nazism, such as the iron cross or the SS bolts . You don't need to use the swatzika to indicate nazism like you don't need to be awake at 4 AM to write a specific insight. This in general can disprove the idea of determinism that aims to necessitate every single point of time with a certain chain of events. It is not inevitable to write the same insight at 4 PM instead of 4 AM like it is not inevitable to use the SS bolts instead of the swatzika to indicate nazism. Therefore there is no necessary cause-and-effect between symbols and events. Just because two events occur in sequence (a tarot reading before a certain event), one doesn't necessarily cause the other (an event trigerred by the tarot reading). Dogs barking at sunrise don't make the sun rise. Black cats are not these energy sources for bad luck if you happened to lose a gamble when the odds of a gamble was against your favor. Conclusion We need to understand that we are the authors of our own narratives, capable of shaping our destinies without relying on cosmic puppet strings. While the arcane may offer a temporary escape, or a way to further understand our intuition, it is through examination of cause and effect that explains how the world works chronologically. It isn't through feeling whether event "A" really led to event "B" occuring. It is through understanding why one event led to the other, if it led to it in the first place (and thus: Skepticism).

(More articles I wrote on spirituality: https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-third-eye https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-arcane-and-causal-fallacy Enjoy!) (Background music) ********************************* Issues With Spirituality: Common Struggles and Insights Spiritual is the adjective form of the word spirit, which comes from the Latin word for "breath," and means the thing that animates life. Spiritual can be used to talk about anything that goes beyond mere physical existence, from ghost spirits to religious feelings. - - Vocabulary.com There is still no agreement when it comes even to the basic Issues With Spirituality. Here is why: Confusing By Default Spirituality is a very problematic concept in philosophy, as there isn't necessarily a direct, universal definition as to what it means. For example, you can be a theist or an atheist, and still share some agreement about any spiritual views that are not religious. For example, you can say that something has a spirit, without necessarily being religious... Be it a period in history, be it an object, be it an activity that evokes much emotion in you. However, not everyone, theist or atheist , will agree with you when it comes to your more-spiritual views. Since spirituality is not only really personal but subjective as well , its usage in philosophy is too unclear to be understood, even by the most dedicated of philosophy readers. Spirituality is a very personal experience, and everyone's spiritual path may be unique. -- Verywell Mind Is spirituality about religion? About incarnation? About meditation? You can use that term in a sentence, and it will nonetheless create confusion. The more abstract a concept is, the more esoteric it will be considered, just like with philosophy itself. Lack of Methodological Clarity Spirituality does not indicate its own set of components. How can one know what exactly you mean by it, when other people use this word as well, but under different meanings? Because of how difficult is to rationally deduce nor verify spirituality, it can easily be regarded with the strawman's fallacy. In other words, you can simply dismiss it as utter gibberish. Regardless, what we can say about spirituality, is that it claims this universe has something "hidden," AKA, higher than oneself. Something that is more mystical, more arcane. It can be described as a force that exists beyond the physical. Some call it a God, others the Way, or even the Tao. Some may describe it as a universal, infinite energy, and so on. What do we want in philosophy? In the end, we want to understand. To do that, we need to grasp the content of which we consume. Without concise understanding, therefore, there will be no attainment of wisdom. We can interpret the material for ourselves, but ultimately, if we don't understand the text or video as good as we can, what, then is the point in consuming it? This is why clarity is so important in philosophy and in content consumption in general. Metaphysical Jargon and Subjectivity Some credit should be given to spirituality, however, for it is the ancestor of all institutionalized religions. After all, religions can be seen as spiritual organizations . What does religion do? It takes spiritual ideas and evolves them into culture, social norms , and ideologies. After all, the concept of divinity is a spiritual one, even if it is just one of many ideas. In the end, spirituality is a pantheon of metaphysical ideas, or ideas that venture beyond mere physicality. To be a spiritual person, you do not have to agree with any of the established understanding of spirituality. As such, many spiritualists exist beyond the matrix of human society. Yet, recognizing some of them could indeed suffice. Spirituality is so subjective, anyone could have a "spiritual prototype" of their own, as each spiritualist would deviate more uniquely from general society. Thus, the only solution to this problem would be using specific terms within this "pantheon." Spirituality as Complex as Philosophy When philosophy is regarded, it is not as "fluid" as spirituality is. A philosopher's job isn't just to believe, but to inspect, contemplate, and reach a logical conclusion. Unlike the spiritualist, the philosopher is more analytical than otherwise. This is why many philosophers are considered armchair philosophers, even outside the academy. In philosophy, if you choose to believe in something. You often have to justify it through supportive information and logic. As a weird example, the spiritualist might eat a cake and immerse themselves fully in it. However, the philosopher would consider the implications of eating the cake , making them more prudent, and even subject to the affects of analysis paralysis, where one's own analysis sabotages their decision-making plans. This is why spirituality and philosophy don't always go hand-in-hand, and at times they are ridiculously unmatched. The spiritualist might have a less-clear methodology of action, and will not always stop and question their beliefs. Instead, they would more immerse themselves within the fabric of reality around them. Philosophy is far more about inspecting, examining, lambasting and so on. It for more sensitive people, philosophy and philosophers may be deemed as arrogant and diminishing of one's experiences. The lambasting of a philosopher may appear as an attack on one's deeply-held belief. However, often, philosophers can be detached as butchers are. Being mentally detached allows them to examine reality with less bias , thus steering them more towards a greater general understanding; an understanding that is far less specific than that of most people. Spirituality is more specific and personal; philosophy is more general. However, they are both abstract methodologies that may be seen as detached from the very reality they aim to describe. They are as theists as they're atheists; environmentalists as heavy polluters; clear-headed as "high". There is no insight to the definition, the moral alignment, and the archetype itself. How then, can it be used clearly during philosophizing? Spirituality's basic problems of understanding come from the fact that none of us can clearly say what is there beyond the physical realm, if such a bigger realm even exists. Furthermore, both philosophy and spirituality require us to have a multi-layered understanding of reality. The issues of objectivity and subjectivity is something both philosophy and spirituality share. Unconventional, Therefore Less Approached As for myself, I have 2 layers of thought (cognition) and 2 layers of emotions. Since spirituality is unconventional, I well understand spirituality is also multi-layered and, as a result, cannot be described in layman's terms at all. Philosophy, spirituality, and eccentric geniuses like myself can never be described simply. The more something is more simply understood, the more it can be accepted by others. We cannot expect most people to understand such complex matters, when they lack the healthy habit of doubting themselves . It is one of the reasons the authority fallacy, or the appeal to authority, makes sense as a logical fallacy: Being in authority, by itself, doesn't make you a reliable source of clarity. It is also why gurus, AKA spiritual leaders, may often be criticized as scammers , whether or not they are ones. The Superiority of the Simple We may theorize and discuss, but in the end we can all agree that physical reality is far more understood than the "metaphysical realm" is. The physical realm is easier to navigate, for starters, and the physical realm is what allows us to survive in the first place. One doesn't need to be a philosopher in order to know how to venture outside and buy a sandwich. One doesn't need to be a philosopher to make friends. Not a philosopher necessarily, nor a spiritualist. Sometimes, there is a lot of practical depth in being a simple human being. Anyone can claim they are masters of a hidden art, such as Reiki, or a prophet of a one true god, and even if we are to question their beliefs and roles, they may argue that "we know what you don't." How would the average person would deem someone in a subject only they, theoretically, are masters in? The answer is simple: the average person may reject them as insane, and deem their practice as impractical, therefore illogical. Furthermore, without necessarily expanding their understanding, the average person may submit to what one may believe to be the facts. Sometimes that critique is valid when something is indeed a hoax. There is no knowledge on behalf of the audience, but the guru's charisma can sure convince one that they're right. The Role of Intuition Finally, we need to address the most basic issue a lot of people fail in: Intuition. Intuition is when you understand something without a way other than intuition. As such, intuitive understanding can be deemed as a wayless truth , as the truth is already found within one's mind, with no further complexity. You might ask yourselves: How is it possible? The answer is that intuition is subjective. Therefore, much of spirituality has to do with intuition. Sages in general are intuitive as a result. Their understanding may be considered otherworldly, alien and unnatural. In India, these folk are known as godmen, or the incarnations of divine beings. Since their understanding is mysterious, they might be seen as more than humans. They might even be seen as aliens. They might be seen as demons, as angels, as sorcerers and even as weirdly undead. However, it is very plausible to deduce that they are humans like you and me. However, their intuitive mind is greater than that of the average person. Furthermore, their unique experiences in their respective lives makes them extraordinary humans, but humans nonetheless. Intuition, as well as spirituality, stems from the unconscious. Therefore, we can conclude that much of our understanding is already unconscious. Final Notes These are all the problems I have thus far found in this term. I used to use it too in my early writings, but only as a reference to self-actualization . To avoid confusion and unnecessary misunderstanding, I rarely use the term "spirituality" it in most of my writings. Thanks for reading. Consider sharing this article if you liked it.

See -- "The Circle of Life" song, Elton John, Martin Cook (Background music) The Pridelands -- A Communist Monarchy The Lion King is not just a movie, but a franchise of several forms of media , including the first movie, several games , and to my knowledge, a single show . The franchise tells the story of a fictional country, led and inhabited by animals, called the Pride Lands, and about the power struggles between at least two factions: those who wish to preserve a concept called "The Circle of Life" and those who are against it. The main theme of the franchise is food . Food is not just a way to survive, but also a source of authority. This authority can be used to justify one's kingship in the Pride Lands, and also to overthrow a current ruler. "The Circle of Life" is both a philosophy and a fundamental principle in the Pride Lands. It states that food must be rationed . In other words, if you are hungry for fish, you need to make sure that you not only eat enough, but also leave enough for others to eat too. "The Circle of Life" is an interesting concept because it teaches us the importance of sharing limited resources in order to make sure that everyone has their fair share of the food they need to survive. However, it is also a socialist concept , as it holds that natural resources should be under the authority of the law and the government, and not be privately owned. It's also known as central planning. Therefore, Mufasa's rule, and later on, Simba's rule, is a socialist one, because their leadership intervenes with the food supply of their own citizens. In the Pride Lands, you cannot eat as much as you want. You need to eat as much as you need, and have enough left over for others too. The whole kingdom is essentially one big commune of various species who need to eat each other in a way that does not discard other animals. It is not exactly a vegetarian or vegan nation, but for carnivores, it is not as easy to live there due to the "Lion King" theme of sharing and not hoarding or looting. The Oppossing Antagonistic Force The main "evil" animals in the franchise are the hyenas. They are often portrayed as foolish, malicious, and incompetent, but I would not call them evil just because they are very hungry carnivores. The reason for them to be the antagonists is not only because they followed Scar, a main villain himself, but also because they defy the "Circle of Life." In other words, they are "the bad guys" because they do not care about the socialist idea of sharing your resources with others by government decree. It is because "A hyena's belly is never full". The Hyena Clan throughout the franchise were marginalized social groups who were forced to keep to themselves, but under Mufasa's and Simba's rule, they became a disenfranchised minority who were denied access to the food they needed to survive. As a result of this forced isolation, the hyenas were often very hungry, having to chew bones in places that were portrayed as dark and distant from the main regions of the Pride Lands. The hyenas might have been foolish, but it was Scar, Mufasa's brother, who manipulated them into believing that they would "never go hungry again" by serving under him as the new king of the Pride Lands. Scar: Master Manipulator Scar, unlike the other monarchs throughout the franchise, did not care for his people when he overthrew his brother and tried to kill his nephew, Simba. As a result, the Pride Lands turned from a socialist monarchy into an anarchy ruled by an apathetic, power-hungry king. Since Scar did not care for the Circle of Life and saw himself as the most important being than any other , the Pride Lands became chaotic and dystopian. The reason being that Scar wanted to be king for the sake of the title and for the food that follows. In that sense, he was indeed more villainous than his hyena henchmen, because he basically manipulated them in exchange for his dream: To take what was taken away from him. Scar was the heir to the throne, until Simba was born, and thus became the new heir. Mufasa did not care enough, not for his brother's dream, and not for the hyenas whom he oppressed and isolated from the prey they needed to survive. So, it is obvious that both of these entities would retaliate and overthrow the original king. Mufasa underestimated his own brother. The Circle of Life: A Flawed Philosophy to Live By "The Circle of Life" is a flawed philosophy because we are individuals who don't really like to share our own resources with others by law. That is because some of us are hungrier than others, make more money than others, and so on. In a socialist state, the collective is at a higher priority than the individualist, as individualism is about personal liberty , and as a result, your own property is not entirely of your own but in the hands of everyone else. It is faulty because you are, as a result, depraved of your basic liberties. Communism can be seen as an extreme form of socialism , even though there are several sects of communism, and even though socialism can be applied to democracy as well. Therefore, they are not necessarily the same thing, even though they could be regarded as parts in a bigger spectrum; a spectrum that is based on sharing private property, such as income taxes, with others. Welfare, for example, is a democratic socialist/social democratic concept because those who live on welfare receive their money from the taxpayer and thus the income is distributed in the name of equality. However, you don't need to be an authoritarian state , like in the case of communism in some cases, in order for welfare to be served to those who need it. The problem with "The Circle of Life" concept is the fact that it breeds antagonism from those who are hungrier than others, in The Lion King at least. It also forces you to be considerate of others whether you like it or not. If it was a perfect notion, any animal in the Pride Lands would have gotten the food they required in order to sustain themselves, and that need would be enough to surpass their selfish desires. And indeed, the circle of life prioritizes needs over desires, and only does not mind desire as long as it does not clashes with needs. However, both are important. This problem comes from another problem, too: The fact that resources are limited, and therefore, get smaller and smaller with every share. As more and more animals get what they need to be fed, some might not get enough, like the hyenas, who were marginalized and excluded from the rest of the country. Imagine you have a thousand apples and need to divide them between 50 people each month. If you did the math right, every individual would get 20 apples. See how quickly a thousand apples became 20 apples, shared between a population of people who could at best form a small community. However, how are you supposed to sustain yourselves with 20 apples a month if there are at least 30 days in a month, if not 31? And the thing is, some people have a greater appetite. Why? Because some are bigger physically, and thus need to eat more ; some are children, whose food is necessary for their development; some work in physical labor so they need food for more energy. You get the idea, right? The Circle of Life is lacking because it disregards people as individuals with their own distinctions and needs. A rhino is not a crocodile, a bird is not a lion, and so on and so forth. This is why, the Pride Lands, as a country who was mostly socialist and/or communist throughout the franchise, was vulnerable to succession wars by those who valued individualism over collectivism. It makes sense, because resources are often limited, and are even more limited when shared with others. As much as I remember, there are only 5 countries nowadays that are socialist: China, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, and North Korea (or the DPRK). It's reasonable that socialism and/or communist did not really work in the world as a government method, not only because of the collapse of the Soviet Union, but also because having to share your resources makes you poorer than you could have been otherwise. Thus, it is difficult for a socialist state to prosper if the benefit earned from work is constantly divided and distributed. End Note I will end by reminding you that there are different forms of socialism since Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto, but remember a quote which I believe is his: " From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs ." Should you not strive for more in life, if you are capable of doing so, you will be left with apples, and not apple pies; pies are usually more satisfying than mere fruits and require more than apples to make. And to survive better, one must prosper.

(Philosocom's Directory On Emotions) (Disclaimer: The guest posts do not necessarily align with Philosocom's manager, Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. The point of guest posts is to allow a wide range of narratives from a wide range of people. To apply for a guest post of your own, please send your request to mrtomasio@philosocom.com ) (Background music) How to Use Emotions as Pawns Mr. Tomasio introduced me to a new concept: Viewing your emotions as pawns . He said that emotions can either be good for you or bad for you. It has only been a few days, but I think his teachings it has been working well. I want to talk a little bit about how to employ this strategy for yourself and why it’s working for me. It is worth noting that I have been meditating daily for the past nine months as I write this article. Also, both Tomasio and I are autistic; therefore, while we may have our own issues with emotions and empathy, we may also have massive strengths in managing our own emotions. I tend to see autistic people having both intense reactions to things in their environment (i.e., triggers, as some might say), yet also adaptability and resilience in adjusting to these triggers. Maybe it is obvious in hindsight — we simply must adapt or die. This adaptation, in my opinion and experience, is a survival mechanism. We autists, or at least a large number of us (because not all autistic people are the same), appear to share a general hypersensitivity , though these sensitivities can span all senses, including sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell, as well as possibly other non-traditional senses, such as the spiritual? Not all of us adapt well. In terms of leading a normal, functional life, the most successful autistics tend to mask better than others, sometimes so well that it becomes instinctive, subconscious. This leads to a general sense of " forgetting who we really are ." I know I am not the only one who experiences life this way from reading other anecdotal accounts as well as generalized stereotypes, both professional and unprofessional. I refer to all this as a lead-in to " Emotions as Pawns " because it may be easier for an autistic person to do this. I cannot know for sure until I spread this analogy to others and ask them how it goes for them. Right now, I can just make assumptions based on what I know. While I personally feel like I am very sensitive and tend to take things more personally than the average person, I also have an above-average ability to divorce myself from emotions when I consciously try . It does seem like a weird dynamic, but it is what it is. Visualization I think the actual "visualization" of one’s emotions as actual pawns on a chessboard is very helpful . Even in real-time, as your emotions are occurring, assigning "sadness," or "rage" to a particular piece on the chessboard is key for this analogy to work. If you feel like this emotion is not helping you towards your life goals ( anger generally is never useful ), then you can simply "sacrifice" this pawn in your visualization and knock it off of your chessboard. Sure, this is much easier said than done, but I think it is a powerful tactic to manage one’s emotions. Why? I recently encountered visualization in another form: qigong. Qigong is an ancient form of energy and breathing practice passed down over centuries through China, used in modern traditional Chinese medicine and martial arts, with a plethora of health and other applications. I can attest that it is a real thing through my own practice, yet science is far behind in playing catch-up in understanding how it works. I must note that one rarely needs to understand how something works to be able to use it effectively. As a simple example, you know how to drive a car, but you do not necessarily need to know how all the inner workings function . I turn the steering wheel, press the gas pedal, and the car goes. I press the brake, and the car stops. It’s not required to understand the mechanical and electrical systems, combustion, to become a race car driver. You could know, but you could also not know and be the best race car driver in the world. I mention this because it applies to meditation too. I don’t particularly need to know exactly how meditation works to practice it and reap the benefits, a few of which include reducing anxiety, depression, helping to mitigate and cure addiction symptoms, among many other researched and purported benefits. Back to visualization . Since managing one’s own body functions can be very complex, sometimes it is far easier to use a visualization than to actively try to control each and every body part. For example, when a professional baseball player is up to bat, the batter probably is not thinking about every single joint in his body, or every single muscle twitch. No, we wouldn’t be able to live that way. Instead, perhaps the batter is visualizing what he wants to happen—"knocking the ball out of the park"—and then, when the ball comes barrelling down at him at 90+ miles per hour, the body just magically moves. In qigong, one of the visualizations is that you have this ball of energy in your " lower dan tian ," which is the area a few inches behind and below your belly button. Without going into more detail about qigong, utilizing this single visualization is better than reminding oneself of all the many different muscles we need to be contracting in order to breathe, sit up straight, etc. I took a long time to simply say, I recently found the power of visualization. I’m probably late to the game, but better late than never! So, in applying visualization to emotional management, thanks to Mr. Tomasio, we have the concept of "Emotions as Pawns." These things are mine! They do not control me! They are mine, and they do as I wish and as I please. If my pawn rebels or puts me in danger, I can simply sacrifice him off the board! To our friends reading this, I hope this will help you on your life journey. ************ You can view more of Omar’s writings by following him on Quora.

Dr. Patient was well known for having a short temper, but that never stopped Mr. Bruin being jealous. When his wife became pregnant was the first time he visited that office. He thought then that the Doctor was rather hot tempered, but maybe he was simply being passionate about his work. Later, when his son caught bear-pox he thought the doctor was rather cold and aloof, but maybe it was just an abundance of medical professionalism. Later he discovered the Doc was attracted to his wife and hated his son, but in this occasion everything seemed just right. The doctor was calm and friendly and after he set Mr. Bruin's crooked ankle, thanked him for his patronage and invited him out for gingerbread and porridge. -- Mr. Kaiser Basileus Introduction In a highly competitive world , where it often seems that the neighbor's grass is always greener, it is reasonable to argue that the emotion of jealousy can be common among anyone who is not satisfied enough with what they have. Additionally, it is also arguable that, like in romantic relationships, jealousy can come from a certain fear— a fear of losing something you already have, like a partner, to a rival who wants them to be their own as well. All in all, we can say that by this logic, jealousy is highly a product of constant competition for limited resources, such as achievements, people and properties. Since the world today is largely capitalist , much of many lives is based on whether or not their talents, functions, and services are good enough to be better than their many competitors. Those who have those better than you are likely the ones to prosper better than yourself , and even lead you to either bankruptcy (if financial or commercial success is the subject at hand) or to unwanted loneliness (if social, romantic, or sexual success is the subject at hand). The path towards success lies in giving people what they want. And those who fail doing so might be likelier to find themselves jealous at the success of others. Thus, since only the eligible receive help from more welfare-oriented governments, the large majority live in a constant state of competition, and thus, of uncertainty, in order to prove themselves worthy of customers, job interviewers, potential contacts, and romantic partners. Jealousy: A Product of Void One obvious solution to prevent jealousy is, of course, to be as satisfied as possible with the fortune you already have , even if it means not going into fields you want to work at. However, since it is often difficult for many to do so, the desired alternative is to take risks and go after your dreams of success. You might find yourself being jealous of those who are willing to take greater risks than yourself, for they have something you might not have -- courage. I believe that jealousy is often indirectly increased by socialization , as we are encouraged to do our best and to become as successful as possible—even if our endeavors will end up being not enough. This is the reason why some of us may be jealous of those who managed to be better than us in whatever field we aspire to become good at. We are, in a word, used to measure our worth by our accomplishments. Myself, as well. Jealousy is always about comparing ourselves to others and feeling like they have something that we want but do not have. We may feel jealous of someone's success, their relationships, or their possessions. Therefore, we can say that jealousy is often rooted in a feeling of emptiness or lack. We may feel jealous of others because we think that they have something that we need to be happy. However, most often than not, that conditionality is a delusion. The problem with jealousy is that it can lead to disappointment. We may think that achieving our goals will make us happy, but sometimes this is not the case. For example, many people believe that having a romantic partner will make them happy. Even though people may not know what it is like to live without a romantic partner, entering into a relationship does not guarantee happiness. The same logic can be applied to many sources of jealousy. We may want something, but once we have it, we may not be happy. The Possible Solutions One possible solution to the problem of jealousy is to be skeptical. Be skeptical enough to think critically about whether your goals will truly make you happy. Don't have unrealistic expectations about what your goals will achieve. It can also be helpful to visualize what your life will be like after you achieve your goals. Remember that for many people, life is a marathon, not a sprint. Do not expect to reap your rewards so quickly. It might take quite a while for you to get whatever you so desire, that others have, and you don't. Take note that they might've took very long to attain their desireables as well. And even if they didn't, who said anything about the world being a fair place to live in? Another possible solution is to ask yourself this simple question: "Will I be truly happy and satisfied once I achieve this goal?" Since emotions are often temporary once we get used to something being a part of our lives, it is often difficult to maintain the same level of excitement we once had when we achieve our desired goals. Taking things for granted is a very impactful process whether or not you'd like it. And by the same token, you might find yourself disatisfied yet again with life! Final Words Overall, we can conclude that jealousy is not always necessary, if at all, as long as we are able to satisfy ourselves and live relatively happy lives. There are two reasons for this: Many of us can be satisfied with what we have now. The people we are jealous of may not be happier or more satisfied than us. We may see that our neighbors' lives seem better than ours, but we don't always know what is happening behind the scenes. Jealousy is necessarily an issue of an internal void. Any emotion can be temporary, including the one you want to feel the most.

(Background music) Understanding the Spectrum of Social Interactions A Place Without Question Our presence in society, AKA, in the company of other people than ourselves, come from many reasons, some of which are more rational than otherwise, and some are done by desire. Others are either involuntary or forced. Our initial presence in society is most often not, forced by external entities, far stronger than us at the time, such as family and government. As babies and as small children, we are not asked, whether or not we wish to spend time with others. We were weak, can't communicate like adults, and the law demands that, regardless, we must spend time at kindergarten, and later on, at school. And even without public education, we either "belong" to our family or to an orphanage. We do not have authority on our lives and in some cases we can't even work due to child labor laws. Our place in the world is forced and goes on without question, until we become work-capable adults. And it is only through our ability to make money, where we can determine our mobility in this world, social or otherwise. Rethinking Our Need for Social Interaction Public education often plays a subtle role in shaping our perception of social interaction. Schools, with their emphasis on group activities, shared schedules, and collaboration, might unintentionally create the illusion that social engagement is an inherent human desire, a mandatory part of life, just like passing exams. This, however, overlooks the crucial distinction between forced interaction and genuine connection. The idea that all humans are inherently social creatures is a broad generalization. Unlike the undeniable need for water, a need we instinctively fulfill from birth, socializing is more akin to a learned skill that requires practice and maintenance. Neglect this "muscle," and social interaction can become challenging or even undesirable. Those who need to get things done, may not socialize because they want to, but rather reluctantly, as there are some things one can't do alone. Additionally, we may force ourselves to socialize just to get help in whatever we're doing, thus saving ourselves energies by sharing the burden of the task. It does not mean, however, that we do it out of a genuine desire for human interaction, nor because we necessarily derive joy from interacting. It's just that the strength of many is preferrable over the strength of one. The more people join our cause, the more sources of energy we can use for our combined efforts, towards a shared goal. But if we had the energies of an entire team or several teams, would there be a need to bother with forming organizations, if doing things alone would've been just as easy? Therefore, declaring every human a "social animal" might be both an oversimplification and a fallacy. Unlike our dependence on water for survival, the need for social interaction isn't universally intuitive. Like a society's forced dependency on its next generations, we are forced to use the help of others whether we like it or not, when it comes to large-scale operation/s. Choosing a solitary path, as I have, can lead to a diminishing desire for social interaction. A life accustomed to solitude reframes others as less of a necessity and more of a choice. And even then, the benefits of collaborations do not ask me whether I am interested in them or not. Logic doesn't ask for your permission, and all necessities stem from conditionality (AKA "A" needs "X" to become "B"). The notion that solitude inherently leads to sadness might hold true for those suffering from loneliness, which might or can affect us all universally . However, it's important to distinguish between voluntary solitude and isolation. Studies linking solitude to depression often fail to consider the aspect of choosing to be alone. Critical thinking requires acknowledging biases towards concepts we hold dear or disdain. In other words, we must recognize both the positive and negative aspects of things. Most things, like social interaction itself, aren't perfect and possess both redeeming qualities and drawbacks. Unnecessary drama, for example, is but one of many ways a voluntary social interaction can deteriorate, along with the use of coercion and other depraved acts, initially unintended by either side. Also, certain people are more prone to social fatigue than others . This shows us that social interaction, while necessary for our mental survival, could also diminish it, leading to the exact opposite in results. The opposite result is further highlighted when interacting with certain people, like narcissists and their agents . Instead of benefitting you, they would actively leech on your energies and even force you to do things, thus decreasing your psychological safety as well. Therefore, the idea that all humans crave constant companionship, and even pleasant company, falls short when considering the dominant element of force in society. School attendance exemplifies this. Just like attending classes doesn't guarantee a desire for the company of classmates, initial social interaction can be involuntary, and either serve our interests or someone else. This forced or self-forced interaction might lead, through sheer repetition, to the belief that social connection is an inherent human need. It's like repeating something over and over until it's accepted as true. But in reality, each individual's need for it exists on a spectrum. Many traits are like that, and not a matter of dichotomy, but of intensity. Hence why ambiverts, for example, exist. The Spectrum of Social Needs The fear of being alone, often termed autophobia , grips many individuals even in the absence of any real danger. While some fears are rooted in logic, the aversion to solitude often remains shrouded in mystery. What is there to truly fear in enjoying one's own company? Solitude, itself, isn't inherently dangerous, although it can be for those struggling with unresolved issues that surface when they're alone. And also for those who use social interactions as a means to escape. My personal experience exemplifies the spectrum of social needs. While I contribute to society through writing, the desire for companionship isn't a constant. Despite my years-long skin deprivation , I manage on my own quite well, for I have a purpose in mind to keep myself busy. When the need for social interaction arises, I engage with others. When I need help, I ask for it. Otherwise, I choose to work on Philosocom in solitude, as a means to solve an otherwise-problematic existence . This selective approach demonstrates that social interaction isn't a universal human necessity, but rather a variable desire. Perhaps the education system simply wasn't as persuasive in my case. Interestingly, even the most deeply connected individuals, like couples in love, crave and/or need moments of solitude . And for some, like myself, romantic love itself holds a secondary appeal to my work on this site. The fantasy of a solitary life, akin to a hermit's existence, likely flickers across many minds at some point. I mainly broke free from that fantasy because I stopped denying my potential. In conclusion, embracing solitude shouldn't be viewed as a social failing or a consequence of a flawed education system. Just as some crave constant connection, others find peace and fulfillment in a life less social. Others simply need to collaborate to get things done, whether or not they like it. Recognizing this spectrum of human needs allows us to be aware the diverse ways we navigate the world, alone or in company. No one way is necessarily worse than the other, and it depends on how interacting with the world effects our mental energies . Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback I believe they are missing one vital part in the education system. I never was taught how to socialize with other people. It was something that adults seemed to think children would learn on their own. Social studies are more the study of history than anything to do with socializing. Put it in terms of your own cognitive reality. We aren’t taught how to interact with other [cognitive] realities. I believe it is important to determine your personality type and figure out a way to interact with the world. This can be done by finding yourself a pack of your own. Those close enough that they can help us out on how to better interact with other people. I believe most of the problems in the world are people being unaware that their reality is different and not everyone sees things the same way that they do. I use social skills for selfish reasons at first. I would intentionally help other people out so they would feel obligated to return the favor. I mean generally speaking people are willing to help out those who help them out. People generally like to help people who they like. If me being a nice person helps them like me more then I am all for helping out when asked. Point being I learned the social aspect of determining the type of person you are. I became a nice person by doing nice actions. This is something anyone can learn to do. Not to mention people will instinctively be drawn towards them then.  Socializing is just one expression of intelligence. Why would we not want to work on that part. If individual parts determine the whole then wouldn’t you want each part to be as strong as possible. It only leads to increases in your human capital. There is no secret to life that requires a lifelong quest to figure out. The point of life is to make yourself as best a human as you can be. Do everything your best and you will see the type of person you are. This includes a need for socializing also as knowing stuff is pointless unless you know how to communicate your knowledge to other people.  You determine your intelligence by understanding your ability to understand things. That is all higher intelligence is. Why the idea of war confuses me. Your country is your asset so how is destroying it good for anyone? War is just proof of how poor mankind is at socializing.  I realize now that socializing is nothing more than a skill . As you will interact with humans for the rest of your life shouldn’t it be the most important thing we should learn growing up? It is expected that enough people, children, going through the same thing, school, will result in them acquiring the social skills they need. Socializing is only a skill that people should learn to learn better.

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