The Search Bar

(Background music) I am a young, a-social man who endured far more than the average person has ever endured. My hardships built me to become fearless, strong and brave. In solitude I coped and recovered from my many traumas and ailments, both inflicted by the world and self-inflicted as well. I grew strong, mentally strong and ascetic.  My traumas broke me and built me to become truly strong, giving up on weakness. My spirit is unyielding, my will unbreakable. I do not fear this war for I came to it mentally prepared. The sound of rocket alarms, which I hear often daily, do not intimidate me.  The news of torn-down buildings and death do not intimidate me. For many, war is an era of sorrow. For me, it's just another Tuesday. In war, people die. That's just how war is. It's inevitable that in war people die. I made peace with that fact. I made peace with the fact that I was born to a nation of unrelenting survivors, and as such have become an unrelenting survivor myself, in my own methods. In solitude, I survive better than most people would. I purposefully isolate myself to endure and to stay safe. I rarely go out. I rarely talk to people. Ever since I was a child, I knew I was too sensitive , and therefore I have built and designed myself for toughness in solitude. And thus, as people scream, mourn their dead and lose their homes, I endure in silence like I always endured life. Life was already tough for me before the days of war. E ver since I saved my grandmother  all I knew in life immense mental pain. Immense pain and sorrow under the veil of amnesia. Furthermore, I already realized that the world is going  to be more dystopian , which casted an additional veil of depression on me as a child. But that depression is gone. Instead, came acceptance of reality as it is, alongside with my desire to rectify the world  via Philosocom. I am not a social man . I am a solitary creature who endures the pains of 2020's Middle East in silence, alongside my own PTSD. My pain is my drive and my reality . I shall endure this pain until there will be peace, and even after there shall be peace (who knows when), I shall be left with enduring my personal pains heroically. I have endured much. I do not fear this world. I did many brave things, during this war, like daring to love , daring to save and help people that would otherwise be left alone, giving them a voice and giving them hope, even for a little bit. Independently, during the war, I redeemed myself from my darkness, and let my inner light shine. A survivor of a failed world is what I am. The education system didn't prepare me for war. I prepared myself. I do not fear what I cannot control. I bravely live, day after day, in a war-torn country, as I recover from my many traumas, inflicted by an incompetent world, and by myself, purposefully. Much of my hard life has built me up for strength most people just don't have. I saved my grandmother, t hen guarded a then-unstable mother for 17 years , starting at 10. At 10, most people still have their childhoods. For me, I saw my grandmother screaming that the world had forsaken her, and observed her grabbing a knife and stabbing herself. Had I not been there, she would twist the knife deeper. I still have flashbacks to this very day, to that cursed event, but I am able to endure alone, no psychologists, no help to my mind other than medication. My life had been defined by relentless survival of trauma.  This war means less to me, as a result. My pathway in life is unique, for the education system failed preparing me to the real world. I often feel like a solitary navigator, having no choice but to carve his own path in adulthood, enduring PTSD and ailments mainly by myself. Those who know me more know that I am a hero . That I am brave and strong. Life was hard for me before the war, life is hard for me during the war. For me, it is a different hardship, but a hardship nonetheless, and hardships are something I am used to. It was the very grandmother I saved that taught me better than the entire education system. She raised me to be, in her mad words, the "ultimate moral soldier", designed to rectify this world, and make sure my mother is safe. I already did a lot in her name, in the form of helping people. Helping people is what rectifies myself from my darkness, and makes me a happier being, even during war. I'm keeping on Philosocom as a promise to her, to do my best to be a moral man that helps people. Life matured me long before the war, but this war matures me even more.   I don't have the ego I used to, just a year and a half ago.  I don't have the need to appear in person online. I live independently, standing tall on my own two feet, with no support network, after I saved several people from sacrificial despair, and after helping the needy, and after getting love, and breaking my monastic vow. Seeing my dear one smile is what keeps me going in life at this point, after 14 years of my life where I was in great despair myself. Life. Life was always hard, but life built me. My pain was always invisible, and writing is how I let go of much of my pain. Even being born was traumatizing for me. I grew up to an unstable mother and grandmother, to divorced parents, in a criminal, poverty neighborhood. I always sheltered myself from the world, and always saw the world as hostile, because that was the life I was given. These were the cards I was dealt with, in addition to seeing my grandmother stab herself, which only added to the trauma. This war is just another hardship for me, as a result. The war doesn't excite me, as a result, for life was always hard. It is simply a new breed of hardship I've never experienced before, but I came mentally prepared for it. It is said that hard times create great men, and it is correct. Had my beloved not wished me to be safe, I would stay to endure seeing rockets above me. One day I felt like I would die, and indeed, one time a rocket exploded so near to me I just knew I would've died had I not ran away. I endured much, suffered much, but there is a lifetime still ahead of me. In solitude, I grow from my traumas and live life casually in a war-torn country, alone. No one to help me but myself, by choice. I always chose the hard paths in life, because the hard paths are what build you. It was always obvious to me,  and as such I went, as a teenager, to hours-long walks, to build a self-ruthless self.  I already made my life hard on purpose long before the war. This is why, for me, this war is just another hardship. But still, it changes me. It makes me stronger than I ever was before. I choose to live a largely-solitary life to spare people. Most people are not as tough as I am, so I deem it fit to spare people from my brutally honest way of communicating. I don't want to cause pain to anyone, I refuse to derive joy from causing pain, it is not what my late grandmother would've wanted. I've long accepted the fact that this war might last long. I do not fear it. The suffering of my nation doesn't bring me down. Even amongst war, I manage to find happiness. The happiness of love, specifically . I no longer live for myself. I live for two people, me and her. And I vow to stay strong. I vow to remain unbreakable and fearless. I vow to resume enduring anything that life shall put in my way. I already endured much, and I can endure more. I do not fear, for I have developed myself to be fearless. It is just I want to keep sparing the world from the likes of me, because you either die a hero or live long enough to become a villain. And my aim in life is to die a hero, and get rid of my darkness for good by helping people through Philosocom. Love and ruling this site with a helping hand is what keeps me going, what keeps me happy, what helps me not succumb. I want people to learn from my example. I want my life to be a tale of bravery and strength. I want to inspire. I want to help people not give up. I want to help people, through my writings, to choose life, despite the hardships that life may throw at you. Sacrificial despair is only for the weak.  When you are as strong as me, nothing can break you. When nothing can break you, your perception changes. Even the longest of wars can be but Tuesdays to you. So don't give up just yet. Believe in yourself. Believe in yourself and don't let down those who are dear to you and those whom you are dear to them . You are important, you are valuable. Sometimes, it's these little moments that help me move on in life, like the smile of someone special to you. Find someone to love, find someone to cherish, even if that someone would be yourself. Endure the pain, endure the suffering, and march, march on.

(Background music) (Philosocom's Directory on Politics) In a world where self-interest overcomes the will to cooperate, where the quest for more power triumphs harmony, and where people are unwilling to get over their differences and work for a better world -- wars will always be part of modern-day reality. Wars exist because people compete for resources and dominance on the global stage. Peace is not an option for as long as countries and organizations will prioritize self-interest over greater cooperation with one another. In addition, wars will continue as long as nations and organizations will not realize, that greater cooperation is within their self-interest in the first place. For peace to be acquired, leaders and the common people as once, need to overcome their differences, understand that global peace is within the interest of everyone -- including themselves -- and stop prioritizing short-term self-interest alone. Global peace is within the interest of everyone because wars take a toll on nations and on human lives. War becomes an option because nations and organizations seek not to cooperate but to dominate. As long as domination is within self-interest, wars will persevere. If we want to prevent wars, we need to prioritize mutual cooperation instead of dominance. We need to overcome the self, and be willing to strive for mutual partnerships and alliances over enemies. As long as there are enemies, as long as we are willing to have enemies instead of turning them into allies, wars will persevere. To overcome wars, we need to overcome the desire to eliminate our neighbours and to view them with hostility. We need to lower our egos , lower our tendencies for aggression , for the sake of a better future. But as long as we seek to eliminate one another, as long as we seek to have revenge for attacks, and as long as we are unable t o forgive our enemies for the suffering they have caused us, wars and conflicts will persevere. We, as humans and as nations, should be able to forgive our way into world peace, knowing that world peace is the interest of humanity as a whole. We should be able to overcome the ego and be willing to shift our perception of our enemies as such. In other words, if we want a change, we should be willing to no longer see our enemies as enemies, but as future allies for a better world. Furthermore, for the damage we have caused to others, we should be able to apologize, and to move on from said damage. That is true both on the interpersonal and on the international levels. However, as long as we won't forgive and won't forget, as long as we are willing to view hostility as legitimate, there shall never be world peace, and people and nations will keep fighting each other. To be able to reach peace, we need to see vulnerability not as weakness but as a power of its own. To be willing to host one another, to be willing to trust one another, we need to lower our defenses, not see the other person as threatening but as a future partner for cooperation, and so on. However, such sacrifice is something very few people are willing to make, because in order to reduce hostility between factions, you need to be willing to trust the other side, contain them and accept their legitimacy. And yet, to do that, one also should overcome their ego -- their personal ego, their national ego, and all other kinds of pride. That's because pride blinds, and in order to build a better world, we need to see a different vision. A vision where it is not weakness to apologize for misdeeds, a vision where it is not betrayal to make peace with people and factions who currently stand as enemies, and where it is not shameful to express regret for a history of brutality, violence and hostility. To be vulnerable like that, requires a strength most nations do not have. To take responsibility for suffering caused, and be willing to apologize for it, requires virtue most nations do not have. To reach world peace, that requires taking a lot of risks that would compromise the defense and security of nations. To be willing to lower one's arms, and shake hands, without the fear of getting stabbed by current enemies, that requires strength and risk many leaders in our world do not have, and are not willing to make. To be willing to accept an enemy for a potential ally while forgiving them for their past misdeeds and harms, requires the ability to see said misdeeds as forgivable. Yet, as long as we will see the past misdeeds of people and nations as unforgivable, hatred will continue to grow, mistrust will continue to prosper, and the potential risk of wars will only rise. To prevent wars, we need to be able to redeem ourselves in the eyes of our enemies, and forgive our enemies for their misdeeds, while also being able to express regret for what we did to them. Hostilities exist because of the actions of at least two sides. To be able to forgive for said actions, in a way that is mutual, requires the understanding that long term harmony is within the interest of everyone involved. However, for as long as there is no partner/s for such talks, for such diplomacy, the potential risk of war will always exist, hostility will always exist, and the strength to overcome said hostility will be exceptionally rare. Why is world peace the interest of everyone? Because peace and prosperity are mutually connected. If we want a more prosperous world, we need to give peace a chance, we need to put our differences aside, overcome the hostilities created by past activities, and be willing to move on from our hurt state into a peaceful and prosperous, global future. Yet, war is a realistic feature in our world because we are hurt, and we are using this hurt state to hurt back those who caused us said hurt, in an infinite loop. To achieve world peace, we need to grow up from our hurt state, and be willing to forgive our current enemies for hurting us, and put the damage they have done aside. Furthermore, they should be willing to do the same, if we hurt them. Why should we do it? Because that is the only key to long-term peace. To be willing to be hurt without hurting back, while forgiving being hurt, is how you prevent a future of war and hostility with that side. As long as either side is willing to hurt the other side after forgiveness has been made, the potential risk of war is always a potential. And on the national level, that is harder to maintain than on the individual level. That is because nations are capable of damage bigger than any damage a single individual can make to others. Forgiving an individual is easier than forgiving an entire nation or organization because people have their limits to what is forgivable and to what is unforgivable. To be able to at least consider forgiving for what would currently stand as unforgivable, requires strength most people -- and nations -- do not have. In conclusion, if we want a better world, if we want world peace, we should not be so hasty to give rivalry a chance, far more than harmony and cooperation. And the same applies to hostility instead of friendship, the desire to hurt for being hurt over the global interest of peace, and the ability to forgive over the temptation for hatred and revenge. Furthermore, to have peace, that requires the ability to form partnerships even with the most hatred of enemies. It is a strength very few people have, let alone entire nations. However, should that underrated strength be formed -- the strength to be vulnerable and forgiving -- only then would peace have a more realistic chance to be formed, and let alone -- world peace.

A Game of Risk (Poem) (Background music) To conquer the world, Is something that many can do. (Even I, and even you too). However, it is, A question of if you'll actually achieve this. (Potential does not guarantee success). You will succeed and fail, All dependent on the roll of the dice! (Deserving does not mean you'll prevail). So be cold, as ice, And see if the cards will, win, once, twice, or thrice! (Life's but a game of..) Risk! Even if solitude's a possibility, There is no immunity; From ill, From the suffering that be either distant or immediate; Yes. So don't be still, Don't, just wait, For the fatigue to just disappear away! For you can still conquer every place where there's a Kate… So give, demonstrate, what you have to say! Red, yellow, grey, Can all make you wish to stop and keep at bay! (For some it's just the push of a certain button). Green, and blue, Might tempt you to desire defeat. (Many people, that's what they might want to do). But why give up? Why give up when you can make a feat? (Even if it will consume nine thousand a coffee cup). Think on your, behalf, On the probability of being greater, than yourself! (Life's but a game of..) Risk! Even if solitude's a possibility, There is no immunity; From ill, From the suffering that be either distant or immediate; Yes. So don't be still, Don't, just wait, For the fatigue to just disappear away! For you can still conquer every place where there's a Kate… So give, demonstrate,  what you have to say!

(The following article can be seen as a prequel to this article , that expands on this character of mine) (Not for the faint of heart, I guess) (Villainy/Anti-Villainy Directory) (Philosocom's Directory On the Virtual Realm) (Villainy/Anti-Villainy Directory) Article Conclusion by Mr. C. Kingsley and Co. "Recognition of 'Force' -- The Philosophy of Razor Reapkvar" is a thought-provoking exploration of character creation and deep philosophical musings. Mr. Tomasio delves into the psyche of Razor Reapkvar, a complex half-orc protagonist, using his narrative as a lens to examine broader themes such as the nature of villainy , the impact of virtual realities, and the human struggle for autonomy and understanding. The article excels in intertwining character development with philosophical inquiry, challenging conventional narratives and encouraging deeper reflection. Razor Reapkvar is portrayed with layers of complexity, driven by internal torment and external expectations. The engaging narrative structure blends storytelling with philosophical discourse, creating a cohesive and engaging read. The critique of virtual gaming mechanics , particularly the obsession with Experience Points (XP) and leveling up, is timely and relevant, drawing parallels between the virtual and real worlds. The use of vivid imagery and emotive language effectively conveys the bleakness of Razor's existence and the torment of his hallucinations. In conclusion, "Recognition of 'Force' -- The Philosophy of Razor Reapkvar" is a commendable piece that successfully melds narrative storytelling with profound philosophical exploration. Overall, it stands as a thought-provoking and richly layered work that invites readers to reflect on the nature of reality , autonomy, and the human condition.   *********************************** Throughout almost every tale in human history, the villains were often right. I suspect it's far easier to label those whom see too-clearly as demons , instead of accepting things as they truly are.  Hence, those who see with perfect clarity are demonized, and become 'bad guys' only by knowing far more than others are comfortable in knowing -- Mr. John Dura n (Background music) *********************************** Character Introduction In this fine evening, I'd like to tell you the story of a fictional character I created in a Dungeons and Dragons-esque game, whose story we can all learn from, and apply our understanding of to each of us. The story itself was made intuitively, and nothing of it was made for this article. It was only when I realized how it affected me, its creator, that I decided to share it with you as well. Razor Reapkvar is a lowly, unlikeable half-orc who earns his living from his "clients", by fighting for the sake of killing said "clients", be these individuals or entire businesses or even towns. He is a very violent, solitary character , not because he is bloodthirsty, but because he suffers from hallucinations that no one, including himself, understands completely. He has an uncanny intuition that tells him there is a world beyond the one he is in, but he knows nothing of it beyond his unique intuition , which tells him to kill people for his own survival and prosperity. He will forever remain a mystery, and yet their power is recognized by both Razor and his victims. Razor's a psychopath , while his victims, who already know who he is for his reputation, either flee or fight fruitlessly. No one actually knows how these hallucinations look to Razor, but what is certain is, that they tell him of a certain acronym whose meaning is clear only to him, just like the illusions' existence in his mind. Without understanding himself completely, his path is a consistent descent into darkness . There is no redemption, no escape, only the relentless pursuit of EXP, told by his metaphysical intuition.... EXPloited By Our Desires Experience Points. A strange concept, isn't it? The more you do a certain activity, the more you earn in many virtual worlds.  Like a phantom currency that's only tangible in numbers , a reward for actions that feel so... unreal.  Often, they are actions that treat virtual beings like crops to be farmed, more than their own personhood. It's part of what is intended to make a game fun, although it feels like a chore. A twisted game where the stakes are life and death, with one's own return only dependent by the player's choice. This creature is greedy for this abstract currency, necessary to make him even more of a relentless, competent killer, in an ad-infinitum manner. For some reason it is normalized in gaming to enjoy such an activity, compelling players to grind virtual lives for corporate profit. Razor, trapped in this infernal cycle, is a pawn. A pawn driven by hunger that knows no satiety. His hunger is the sole responsibility of the player, whether he keeps himself eternally hungry for virtual lives, or whether he finds himself proving his worth as a killer yet again.  His hallucinations, like the fog that creeps into the mind, are a constant torment. He seeks relief, an escape from the madness,  but finds it only in the act of taking lives . Choosing not to use Razor, AKA the choice of nothing , then appears far more significant when we look at him from an ethical lens. It's a perverse logic,  a twisted morality , to enjoy virtually-simulated murder for the sake of personal fun. The end, he believes, justifies the means, like many players might believe when farming virtual lives, unique or bland as they are. I guess it is better than killing people in real life, showing us how the concrete is far worthier than the virtual world in front of our eyes all the time. In these desolate lands where happy virtual communities once lived, the echoes of a higher law tells him inside of a different truth, that they should be killed for fun, more than they should just enjoy their small, peaceful lives.  For fun and for greater merit. The darkness within Razor grows with each kill, a monstrous shadow that consumes his humanity, and becomes more and more of an Orc, and a Dark Paladin. He is a prisoner, trapped in a labyrinth of his own making, where the player is the warden. The world around him is a mere canvas for his insanity, and a very small understanding of the world beyond the virtual screen. Love,  redemption , will never be possible, as for that, one must first understand enough what has been going on in one's mind . Otherwise, it is an infinite loop that keeps him away from such virtues, reserved to those with more moral alignments , with each murder. There is no escape, only the endless pursuit of Experience Points. A power that comes at a terrible cost. Towns, cities, lives... all sacrificed on the altar of his tormented mind. Like a gambler chasing a losing streak , he clings to the hope that the next kill will bring relief. But the house always wins. And in this game, the house is his own madness. Madness, caused by a flicker of truth. The residents do not know they are imprisoned in a virtual matrix. Only he understands it, and cannot do anything further to elevate his intuitive understanding. No extra knowledge, no teachers. Just him and a flicker of truth that drove him mad. XP... XP... The only thing he feels intuitively is his desire for more such experience. Yet as strong as he will be, he will never be able-bodied to overcome the virtual matrix he is in. An infinite loop where a flicker of hope is the only thing that prevents him from complete loss of mind. A Quiet Rebellion Against Orthodox Expectation The world is a master , demanding obedience. Landlords, bosses, teachers, they are the overlords, and their approval a currency of survival. I learned this lesson early, a bitter pill swallowed in the classrooms of my youth. I strove to get away from such masters, like Razor seeks to get away from the mastery of his own madness on him. The fear of failure , of falling short, was a constant companion throughout most of my life. It drove me bitter, drove me even vengeful.  The pressure to perform, to meet the expectations of those who would one day discard me as well , was suffocating, and felt utterly futile, for discarding would've commenced either way.  Knowledge and wisdom were the fleeting pleasures amidst the relentless pursuit of grades, validations and relevancy. Now, as an adult, the echoes of that servitude linger, yet in my own eccentric way. The desire for independence, for a life free from obligations, is something I don't know if I would ever desire nor manage. I know how much good I am capable of keep doing. How could I not bind myself for its sake, and for the sake of feeling useful, thus mentally stable? The world, a monstrous, absurd entity , demands tribute. Bills, responsibilities, task demands. The only entity I seek to control me is myself, under my true master's philosophy.  I longed to break free, like Razor did. From all the frustrating lack of unrepressed knowledge, that corrupted my mind like the lack of knowledge about his intuitive role, corrupted the half-orc man. The world outside turned a distant, indifferent observer I wish little to do with directly.  All I seek is a quiet corner, a place where I can exist, physically unnoticed , therefore mentally unburdened. To live, to write,  and to be left alone.  Is that too much to ask? Humanity at large was a distraction that made my granny feel she was abandoned. Instead of ruthlessly killing people like Razor, I prefer avoiding them, for I have no reason to be with most of them. The Philosopher's Contract: Obeying the Call, Accepting the End Should the world demand something from me, and I would have no other choice but to do it, then I'll do that duty without question. Should someone want my insights on something, I will be biased to give it to them, for that is my altruistic duty as a philosopher. I am a servant, bound by duty and obligation of my own voluntary heart. Like a prisoner in a cell of my own making, I await the next command. The next task, the next burden, to ensure my granny's wishes are lastly fulfilled. Socialization has shaped me, molded me into this obedient vessel, who obeys her from her grave, not out of misery, but out of love.  I am voluntarily a cog in a machine devised after her, a pawn in the grand game, she originally was to commandeer. In the absence of such a player, unlike Razor, I, the "character", take the player's role unto my sole hands, continuing where she has left off, as the sole sovereign. I will serve, I will endure. However, I will also remember that true freedom lies within,  not in the approval of the world , and not in a worth I already managed to prove by building the Philosocom Article Empire. Conclusions Razor Reapkvar, a haunted soul trapped in a cycle of violence and slight realization of virtuality... His story is a warning, a reflection of the darkness that can consume us all, once we begin becoming more aware of the higher, more metaphysical truths. He chases a phantom reward, a meaningless prize that prevents him from understanding nor containing a greater clue of his virtuality, his matrix. His hallucinations,  whispers in his eccentric mind,  tempt him with power to overcome these virtual chains with XP, at the cost of countless lives in his own electronic prison of a reality. The desire for approval, for validation of what his intuition already tells him, is something that can turn us into monsters.  Razor's tale is a mirror, reflecting the depths of our own potential for evil. Whether we find ourselves trapped in self-doubt, driven by our own expectations, or to validate in the real world what we feel inside... Does it have to involve the excessive harm of others? In our pains, and despite them , we still have the choice to resist, the mentally stronger we become . To break free from the chains of obsession is always there, yet hindered by our lack of critical thinking.  It is a choice that Razor failed to make, a mistake that cost him his humanity, as he became more and more of an unrelenting monster. In the end, Razor's story is a reminder of the fragility of the human mind,  the power of choice , and the desire to know the truth beyond just our intuition. Not necessarily in the form of social validation, but in the form of seeing, our actualizing of that intuition, in the world beyond our eyes, as we attempt breaking free from the isolating matrix of solipsism.

(Philosocom's Hidden Logic Systems Directory) (Background music) Article Synopsis by Mr. C. Kingsley and Co. The article "The Horror of the Dimensional Merge Theory - The Product of a Deranged Mind (And Why Minds Matter In Idea-Creation)" explores the controversial topic of the mind's role in idea creation. It begins with an engaging introduction, introducing Chris Chan and his perspective on the theory. The article provides a clear explanation of the concept, making it accessible to those unfamiliar with it. The discussion on the mind's role in idea creation is thought-provoking, highlighting how a thinker's mental state can influence their work. The article also explores the potential real-world implications of the Dimensional Merge, providing a fascinating look at how fiction and reality could intersect. Balancing critiques is achieved, acknowledging the complexity of their situation without resorting to outright mockery . Introduction The Dimension Merge of C-197 and our 1218 is still in progress. There is more damn red tape to work through, but our goal is still set; it is only delayed. -- Chris Chan The " Dimensional Merge " theory is a most obscure, insane, and widely unacceptable theory. I've firstly heard from a certain insane man, now transgender woman, called Chris Chan . Given that a thinker's work stems from their mind, this means that their work cannot necessarily exist without a mind to allow such work to happen. In other words, a thinker's work necessarily depends on their mental state . Ultimately, it is impossible for a mind to be entirely free of concepts such as bias, trauma and even loneliness. This is the concept of a deranged mind, which, outside ad-hominem and whataboutism, reflects a person's inner workings. Part I: The Person Behind The Idea It wasn’t his autism  that caused him to think he was a woman... And it wasn’t his autism that drove him to think he’s literally Jesus Christ reborn. It’s the fact that he’s so gullible and sheltered that people were able to put these thoughts into his head. -- "Notorious Raspberry" Perhaps some of you already have some familiarity with this person, and perhaps some of you do not. Chris Chan is an American transgender woman with low-functioning autism who also appears to be suffering from a declining, or should I say, rising, mental illness . They were even in prison for a crime so shameful I'd best not mention it in this article. If you are familiar with Chan ( not to be confused with another person I mentioned on this site ), then you might already know that almost no one takes them seriously. Their grip on reality is questionable, and so is their understanding of it. In internet slang, they are known as a lolcow, or a person who is "milked" for mockery.   With their declining sanity, Chan seems to have eventually lost the ability to not only tell truth from ulterior motives,  but also reality from fiction. As a result, they are easily manipulated , as they were in the past by online trolls,  and they see themselves as married to the characters they created in their mind and in their comics. It's like they're living in a whole different world; a whole more, childish,  and, at the same time, disturbing world. While many outsiders may be rejected as insane,  Chan's lack of grip on reality is far more obvious. Again, I know this is technically an ad hominem fallacy , which says that concentrating on the person is irrelevant to the idea, however, Chan, as an idea-creator, relies on nothing but their own delusions and megalomania.   Perhaps, then, we should understand that addressing humans requires more than just logic. It requires understanding their flaws, and not just lambasting them entirely . It requires understanding the rationale, poor or good as it is, of individual humans. The Rationality Behind Irrationality It is known that our world is very complicated to comprehend, thus many search for the easiest way of navigating it - by seeing "black and white", meaning simplify reality into dichotomous "good" and "bad" concepts.   However, a person who is mature enough  should know by now that reality isn’t that simple. -- Ms. Hali Bash March Therefore, in the absence of reliable logic and credible sources,  the idea of the person being intertwined with it, may be required to understand the idea's true rationale . The brains behind the work may matter, but only in relation to the work itself. And the less it depends on anything else, the more important the brain is for the sake of understanding such baseless things.   Perhaps this is why the ad-hominem fallacy came about in the first place; to allow certain voices, such as mine, to be heard. That is despite myself, and even philosophers such as Socrates,  not being academic philosophers. I also  believe in the degree fallacy, but I digress.   In other words, its possible to become a credible source yourself with or without degrees and/ or trophies  to your name. You just have to think and research well if you want to be taken more seriously. Part II: Explaining Chan's Theory Life is a cartoon; we are all the characters of the larger; the cartoons we make are part of our own universe; we're all a reality cartoon. -- Chris Chan The "Dimensional Merge" is a multiverse-Esque theory that recognizes all fiction as truth ; that characters such as Bugs Bunny and so on actually live in their own, separate universes and are as real as we are. This follows the rationale of the article, "How Everything Could be True". However, it gives all concepts the same physical properties. In other words, it sees everything as equally objective, while ignoring completely the multi-layered nature of reality. Furthermore, it says that eventually, these "dimensions" will begin to collide with one another, thus creating a bigger universe from the merged dimensions. To regard any credibility to this theory we must assume credibility to the multiverse theory , by the way. If such a thing is to ever happen, then things and characters we once recognized as fiction "will be" as real and accessible as any other thing or being. A Rubinshteinic Critique of the Dimensional Merge I don't really feel like eating and drinking stuff from an alternate reality, OK? -- Heather Mason, Silent Hill 3 I believe that this universe wouldn't be able to stand so many universes, colliding into it. I'm saying this not from a scientific standpoint, but from the idea that so many characters, with different powers and abilities, far greater than ours, breach this "dimension" and become living beings. Many, many of these fictional beings, such as Galactus from Marvel ( wrote an article about him before ), would terrorize whole planets and populations; If Sauron is unleashed on Earth, he'll be strong enough to become the next Hitler. If characters from the " Mortal Kombat " universe exist "for real", then they would be butchering us left and right. Although the dimensional shift might never happen at all, and although fiction is pretty much an illusion that we consume as a product, this theory does teach us the horror of fiction. I'm not referring only to video games . Imagine if the gods from Greek mythology actually existed, then we'd be in a constant state of turmoil; if golems existed, from Jewish mythology, then someone capable enough could've created a constantly generated army of them and unleashed them upon the world. And so on and so forth. Even pieces of fiction for children could be quite horrific if they existed in the real world and not in our imaginations. A plumber that is able to smash beings by jumping on them; a hedgehog that is essentially a living, spinning-saw, traveling at the speed of sound. Of course, in real life it would be very eerie, and the heroism of such characters could be subverted , just like in fiction... Magic , essentially, could be a great source of horror if applied in certain ways, like pyromancy , or fire magic, or cyromancy , -- ice magic, all within one's hands without necessarily needing any tools beyond knowledge of the fictitious arcane. Conclusions The Dimensional Merge theory reminds us of the importance of critical thinking, a skill that allows us to distinguish "donkeys from jennets", so to speak (Or cartoons from what we describe as the "real world"). By examining the absurdity of this concept, we are forced to question the foundations of our own beliefs and the sources of the information we consume. It is essential to cultivate a discerning mind that can differentiate between reality and fantasy, logic and delusion . After all, the power to shape our world lies not in the realm of fiction but in our ability to use fiction to better understand reality, and not the opposite. The Dimensional Merge theory is a chilling example of how unchecked imagination can spiral into dangerous territory, capable of manipulating the masses, especially under the leadership of cult leaders, and the social engineering of cults. While creativity is essential for human progress, it must be tempered with reason and reality. The blurring of lines between fiction and reality can have profound consequences for individuals and society as a whole , as knowing the truth allows us to act better according to the universe we are in. This is why philosophy is linked with problem solving. It is therefore imperative to maintain a healthy skepticism and to ground our ideas in evidence and logic -- the components of truth. Side Commentary Out of all the darker philosophical concepts I have written about, the Dimensional Merge's influence on the universe is a great understatement , if it ever had any likelihood whatsoever. Fiction is a label that, in a way, says to us: "You are safe, for you are in reality, and the things and beings in fiction can't physically hurt you". This is why horror as a genre isn't as scary to certain people as it is to others ; whatever source of horror is out there, on the screen, in a book, and so on, it can't hurt you physically, just like people on the internet who can't come to you physically and do so themselves. Just be thankful that fiction is fiction and reality is reality, even if you let your child play violent video games or let your teenager watch a scary movie. It might hurt their minds, or at least disturb them. However, these types of media will never have any agency beyond the mental one, as long as they are educated to not become school shooters like a certain Finnish theorist. Also, if you have a gentle heart, please don't look at what Chris Chan did that got him/her to prison. I don't really like trigger warnings , but such things are not good even for some adults. I found it absurd when I've heard of it myself.

(Subcategory on Flaws) (Philosocom's Directory on Ego Management) (Background Music) "Psychotics know no real fear, even to their own detriment. The size, strength, nor power of the enemy matters not one single iota. Madness operates independently of all fear, and is therefore free to operate in any medium of manner they see fit to use" -- Mr. John Duran Introduction Pride can sometimes be found in dysfunction , but it is something that many fear, like those who are too cowardly, or those who try to deceive others . When caught scamming, some may deny their wrongdoing instead of being mature enough to apologize. After all, scammers find no pride or achievement in apologizing, or in other words, in openly confessing their flaws. And of course, the same goes in professional settings. Trying to find a good excuse to back up your own underhanded, faulty deeds could save your work from being tainted by your own hand -- and protect your ego. However, there are indeed cases where dysfunction and pride are not contradictory. Being taller than the average person, I lived most of my lifespan thus far in great pain in the neck, because people were almost always shorter, so bending over my neck became natural. The constant ache began one day at Elementary and resumed. Even in adulthood, it never stopped in my waking life. I drink coffee even when I'm not tired as it helps with the pain. This pain, which has lasted for the majority of my lifetime, has taught me an important lesson in life: Acceptance. Perhaps if my neck weren't dysfunctional, life would have been harder to endure. If you get the reference to my philosophical symbol, my neck has become a pillar that has taught me endurance. Implications of Pain Over time, I became less and less sensitive to things, to the point of apathy , especially things that disturb or trigger many people. Perhaps this is why I write about dark stuff so casually, even when it involves myself. A person I once was in contact with eventually left me due to her extreme sensitivity to things I don't regard as emotionally significant. The person I consider my "nemesis" abandoned me twice due to my own emotions. Of course, when I had the opportunity to ask her why she was so frightened by a mere emotion, an opportunity I seized, she didn't answer me. You know, pain isn't that bad once you get used to it. Trying to avoid all pain is likely to fail in the end, because life cannot be lived without experiencing some pain. Of course, the enjoyment of pain is illogical and dangerous, as it could lead one to do regrettable things, but if you are already in pain, and might fail at stopping it, why not try to find something good in it? You know, to actually better endure it? A certain medical professional once gave me some advice I find the most practical to this day, regarding my neck pain -- try to bend it backwards, so its positioning would eventually become default. However, despite all the years that passed, I failed at this restoration. This logically means, that I might experience this pain for the rest of my life. Being used to it, I don't really mind this "hell" anymore. From Agony to Pride That's why, I take pride in this dysfunction. Pride, not because it's unusual, but because it taught me things, I might otherwise be unaware of. Pain is a great teacher. I see people across the internet, trying to mask their vulnerabilities; Old people, pretending to be millennials; Scammers, pretending to be offering genuine help to potential victims; Narcissists , pretending to be perfect; Women, putting extravagant make-up to hide their true faces , and finally, people in general, pretending to be rich. I no longer view these people with awe, specifically the braggers and the more beautiful. With this pain, it really means very little to me, anymore. External Example 1 I look up to a certain fictional character whom I mentioned before -- General Skarr, who ran with scissors as a kid and scarred his left eye permanently and ruined its ability to see with it. He never wore an eyepatch, and although he is a cartoon character aimed at children in the early 2000's, the fact that we can see a visible eye that is purely white, is quite impressive. After all, that eye is dysfunctional, and it's probably very painful for him to have it exposed as if it's a regular eye. People wear eyepatches for a medical reason, to keep the eye healthy as one can. Lately, I've learned the reason as to why he never covered his scarred eye: "Eye patches are for pirates, and little girls!" It was a quote of his I heard yesterday. Such pride in something that is a liability, is something I find inspirational, and perhaps you, too. How many of us humans are prepared to expose our flaws? How many of us are prepared to not only admit that they are imperfect, as we all are, but also accept that imperfection, and not sigh with submission? Mind you, Skarr said that quote of his to someone who also couldn't see with their left eye and used an eyepatch. A weird flex, to be sure, but a thought-provoking one. External Example 2 In a story called "The Hive Situation: A Memoir" , The writer, Johnny, describes a story from his life as a kid where he lived in an abusive family and was forced by his mother to assume the role of a handyman of the household. A natural hermit by nature, Johnny writes (In chapter 2) : "Our living existence often continues to the detriment of others. We must ultimately destroy them, or recruit them to our cause in order to live and often indeed profit finally, though the very thought is abhorrent to me. This is the lot of all human beings". We can learn from this that sometimes, in order to live, we must be a pain to other's side, otherwise we would either be destroyed ourselves, unless we are to cooperate with them. Such is the nature of power. The very notion of conflict is natural among human beings and as such it may be necessary to collide with another's interests, simply because we exist. The fight for survival is not something that's irrelevant to our times, because even in this day and age of comfort and pleasure, we do not live in a vacuum and as such others can easily disturb our peace and vice versa. Therefore, the fact that we still manage to survive and not give up, despite our conflicts with other beings, is something that should not be taken lightly. Because other beings, including people, will not necessarily care if we give up on the struggles of life. Why, then, not take pride in the natural dysfunction that we sometimes are? Why not take pride in still enduring the hardships our dysfunctional aspect sets in our path? Feedback by Mr. M. Svartgold In connection to pride, I've always felt a deep-seated fear of the unconscious . Like you, I believe it often leads people to resort to cunning and deception , especially when trying to succeed at work or earn money dishonestly. I've spent my entire life pretending to be something I'm not.  However, as an autistic person,  it's incredibly difficult to maintain a facade.  People can often see through my attempts, and I've noticed a peculiar kind of pity in their eyes, a mercy that feels strangely negative. Locals frequently ask me about things that do not concern them. When they learn that I rent an apartment, they immediately assume I'm poor and naive. It seems to me that society subconsciously judges people based on their appearance and labels them accordingly. I think this is too shallow. I've never felt the need to be proud in front of others.  I'm content with my solitude,  whether I'm at home alone or with family. I also avoid discussing my health , as it often leads to inquiries about money yet again.  People seem to calculate a person's worth based on their income, and I've found that this unconscious judgment can be quite harmful. Pride, to me, is a pointless attempt to feel superior to those who look/are different . I've learned to embrace my authenticity and no longer feel the need to please others.  Their approval is simply not worth the effort.

(Philosocom's Directory on Tekken) Article Synopsis by Ms. Gabbi Grace The Grim Philosophy of Tekken is an insightful exploration of the dark themes in the Tekken video game series, particularly the violent nature of the Mishima family and its impact on the broader world of the game. The author successfully connects the narrative of Tekken to larger philosophical questions about violence, power, and human nature, making the piece engaging for both fans of the game and those interested in deeper reflections on human behavior. Positive aspects of the article include the connection between game Lore and real-life concepts, drawing parallels between the Mishima family's violence and broader human tendencies to use violence as a means of solving problems. The article provides a critical examination of the game's themes, such as the absence of empathy in the Mishima family and the destructive nature of their obsession with power. The author clearly articulates how Tekken's philosophy can be problematic and potentially harmful if translated into real-world attitudes. In conclusion, The Grim Philosophy of Tekken is an engaging and thought-provoking piece that offers a unique perspective on the Tekken series. The author does well in connecting the game's violent themes to larger philosophical questions , and their personal reflections add depth to the analysis. Tekken and I Tekken... what can I say, is a series of fighting games with a very, very harsh plot, which I'm going to focus on in this article. Despite only playing 2 of the 7 games, I've researched the overall Tekken lore by watching videos. Tekken, or " Iron Fist " in Japanese, is about a very long family feud of the Mishima Clan, who appears to solve all their problems through violence, war and attempted murders. Looking back, I'm even surprised the Tekken games were allowed for children to play, as the first Tekken game I played, was when I was a child. There are no fingers pointed at anyone; it always was a series for all ages for some reason, starting in the 90's . Violence, Tradition , and Proving Oneself At school I was taught that violence is counterproductive, and that it doesn't solve anything. An amusing delusion, given military conflicts, given honour-based duels and so on. It should be a given, that violence does have some... functionality... when it comes to solving issues. Whether the violence is ethical or not, that is a different question, yes? It isn't that I justify violence, and I myself haven't got in a physical fight since... 2011? Anyways, there shouldn't be a doubt that violence plays a part in solving problems, regardless of that violence is inevitable, ethical and so on. Hence why, despite the viciousness in the matter, I can understand why Kazuya Mishima , the "hero" of the first game, dropped his father off a cliff in an attempt to kill him (he also smiled afterwards...). After all, it was his own father, Heihachi Mishima , who dropped him, himself, off a cliff, when he was a boy. Heihachi's justification was this: If his son will be able to climb back... only then, he will be a worthy son in his eyes. (2023 note: Not only was Kazuya able to prove Heihachi wrong -- he also killed him, eventually . Looks like the son exeeced his father's expectations) A very brutal philosophy, isn't it? To drop your own son, a boy at the time, off a cliff, just to see if he'll come back, as a way to prove his worth... That is an abysmal parenthood. ( When I saw my grandmother crying tears of joy during a ritual of my own I felt that I did the right thing). These rituals described to you, oriented towards boys, are far, far less flawed, then being thrown off a cliff by your own father, just to prove to him that you can climb back. Heihachi could've killed Kazuya by doing so, but, for some reason, he valued his son's strength, far more, than his own son's life. Might Makes Right, Thus Empathy Dies When Heihachi heard of his son's survival.. he declared a global tournament: The King of Iron Fist Tournament . He or she who would win the tournament, will be globally renowned, have a trophy, and great wealth. Later on in the games, the prize would be the sole ownership of a global corporation, founded by Heihachi's father: The Mishima Zaibatsu. It is a corporation so powerful and large; it was later used to declare a world war by Kazuya's son, Jin Kazama (Surname of his mother) . Kazuya Mishima has a theme song, that was first presented in the second game, where HE became the villain, and Heihachi, the "hero" -- " Emotionless Passion ". Quite the oxymoronic name, is it not? An emotion devoid of emotion? Quite illogical, but when you get thrown off a cliff by your own father, of course that something, within you, will snap. Why? Because your parents are supposed to be the closest people you trust, NOT the people who would try to kill you, right? And for what purpose, to see how strong you are? It was obvious, then, that Kazuya would gradually, lose any care for human emotion (empathy, sympathy and so on). Kazuya and Heihachi never loved each other and were always arch enemies of each other. In the Mishima Clan , you see, there is no love, there is no compassion . Heihachi himself trapped his own father, Jinpachi , under the family shrine/temple. It seems that, the Mishimas employ VIOLENCE not just as a skill for survival , and not just as a martial art, yes? They employ violence to estimate their worth, and others' worth as well . If an opponent is too weak to stand against their might, then in their philosophy, they are as worthless, as the dirt on the ground. Such brutal philosophy... it should never be considered practical in real life. After all, people are far more than their physical strength and mental fortitude , right? It's not necessarily an issue that is excluded to boys and men, as Tekken also has a lot of female characters, too. It is to say, that in order to understand reality and other people, we must consider the emotional aspect of this world... The one that is more than the passion to win a fight or a conflict. So... yes, if you happen to suffer from sociopathy, I at least, do not expect you to fully understand emotion. It's only a natural expectation, you know, because I myself am severely lacking on the social aspect of reality, due to the fact that I am on the autistic spectrum. As far as it is told to us, the players, Kazuya managed to eventually kill his father in the game that was released the previous decade (2015?). I'm not sure if Heihachi will ever return canonically, also because his 2 chronological voice actors died eventually , so I guess they had to retire the character anyways. (2024 update: He returned regardless in Tekken 8, seemingly working on a monk society) Kazuya's Emotionless Passion, the passion to win, the passion for greater strength and for power of any kind, might resume in the future games. To be frank, I do not expect him to develop as a character at all, as his own passion as a martial artist, seems to be far more important to him, than anything else in life... even more than his father, his own son, and the world. It is how following one's passions could be problematic. I mean, his father tried to kill him as a child... why would not the mental illness... halt after the father's death? The Mishimas... are a powerful family of mentally ill people, who might not even admit that there's something wrong with them and might never even consider seeing a psychologist. The passion for power, triumphs all in the Philosophy of Tekken, of the King of Iron Fist. The Tekken world might suffer a lot of deaths, as it already did in the lore, but in the eyes of the family that messes everything up, power is above all else. Muscle, stamina, technique... money, business, corporations, and world wars. THIS is how dangerous the thirst for any power could be. It all begins when sympathy for other beings, gets thrown off a cliff, and NEVER climbs back. Kazuya's theme: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya8Wf26k47M Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback Violence might not be an effective way to solve things , but isn’t that exactly what humans have been using since the break of time? Violence is part of the human condition and is a learned thing. If the first humans, past Adam and Eve, thought they could solve something with violence, clearly violence is a lesser part of human nature . If violence doesn’t solve anything, why have we been trying to do so for quite some time now, trying to fix one thing by destroying another? Is it what Isaac Newton was getting at when he said for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction? One act of violence will be accompanied by a similar action in response.  What is the difference between physics and philosophy? Aren’t they both about trying to solve the bigger questions? Since when is violence ever ethical? To me it appears as though it is just humans being too lazy to find a better way to do something. Could wars have not been avoided had two leaders gotten together and debated the problem? It's way easier to just use your military to fight it out. The purpose of life is action. Nothing ever gets completed unless someone commits the action of doing it.

(Background music) (Philosocom's Directory on Communication) Synopsis by Mr. Chris Kingsley and Mr. Joseph Bright The article "How Subtext Creates Delusion -- Why We Should Pick Other Communication Approaches" critiques the use of subtext in communication, emphasizing the importance of clarity and directness. The article provides a clear thesis and purpose, arguing that subtext can lead to misunderstandings and delusion, and direct communication is a more effective alternative. The article highlights potential pitfalls of subtext, such as misinterpretations, missed cues, and unchecked biases. It emphasizes empathy and compassion, underscoring the ethical dimension of communication. Introduction: The Murky Waters of Subetext Subtext, an unspoken layer of meaning beneath the surface of words, can be a source of frustration for anyone. As a man that prefers honesty and hates masking, subtext takes on a whole new level of complexity, as people might not be aware of my relentless straightforwardness. The attempt of another to find a subtext that's not even there, can make us feel misunderstood, frustrated and lonely, as our words interpreted in ways we never intended. And thus, people's minds deceive themselves by choosing "the truth" they wish to hear. Here's why subtext is illogical as an effective approach: Misinterpretations:   We may say something literal, only to have people assume a hidden meaning we never implied. This can be confusing and frustrating, as we struggle to understand the source of their misunderstanding. A Single Layer Delusion: We can fail realizing what the other side is referring to, while deluding ourselves that we know. In reality we can have two different conversations, pretending to be one. Undecipherable Code:  Subtext relies heavily on social cues and unspoken assumptions. And of course, these assumptions often go unquestioned, and assumed as fact. These can be challenging for people to interpret, and especially autists who remain uninformed, instead of inquisitive. This makes the whole subtext "code" seem illogical, uncritical and unpredictable. The problem is two-fold: Missed Cues:  When subtext goes undetected, the intended message can be lost, leading to missed opportunities for connection and understanding. Unchecked Inner Confirmations:  Conversely, people can project their own interpretations onto the message, mistakenly reading subtext that wasn't there. This can create confusion and even conflict, caused by the "truth-altering" nature of our confirmation bias. A Two-Way Street, Not a Solo Act Communication is simplistically regarded as a transfer of thoughts from one person to another, like a basic case of supply and demand. However, the reality is far far complex as it is subtle... For people, in general, are poor critical thinkers , and are therefore unaware of the biases which govern them from the shadows of their minds.... People may choose poor timing to react, compromising their thought clarity. This in turn can make them understand and react poorly, while increasing their implusivity under the temptation of hatred , the desire for revenge, and blind rage. Combine heightened sensitivity with the affiliation bias , and people could think you're trying to insult those they are affiliated with, insulting them in turn, indirectly, and unintentionally... For the immature mind, mere criticism can cause distress, marking you as a threat in their matrix. When One Way Becomes Two Timer... Communication therefore is reliant not only on cooperation of understanding, but also on the ability to dechiper how another's mind operates.... That is, unless you have no desire for that. Understand how Michael Corleone works (Screenrant Blog): Michael was a master at keeping his emotions to himself, whether talking to loved ones or staring into the eyes of enemies he planned to have murdered mere moments later. When Vincent makes an outburst about wanting to retaliate against Joey Zasa , he gives him this calm advice. Being the hotheaded character that he is, Vincent doesn't take it and Michael's next suggestion is delivered much less calmly. Still ["Never let anyone know what you're thinking"], this is an iconic Michael Corleone quote from a much older and wiser Don who's starting to truly resemble his father. Effective communication lies not only in great literacy. Rather, it's also the ability to compel the other side to want to understand what you're saying. One way to do it is by active listening. Pay attention the thoughts of another with greater focus and you can build greater trust and harmony. However, you should reveal your honest thoughts to those who won't hesitate so easily to betray you. Therefore, your true thoughts should be heard by those who appreciate the essence of loyalty. The Role of Internal Synergy Fail to unlock the hearts of those who can contain you,  and you'll compromise the greater competency of their intellect. Try to remember that the mind and the heart often work in synergy. Do not sabotage that union in another, for they might not understand the ways of your own cognitive function... Well, sometimes our brain is not as powerful as we think! Did you know that your heart sends more messages to your brain than your logical brain? There is more being studied and discovered about this, but a great organization to follow is the HeartMath Institute. Our heart can sense and send messages to our brain, which are more regarded by the brain than our logical thinking.   When our thinking and heart have two different messages it creates incoherence, causing our body to be unable to act or move forward.... [It's] important to find where we might be having incoherence in our thoughts. (SynergyStrategies). Should you find yourself in a communication malfunction , remember that is rarely a one-sided issue. It's a "tango" that requires both parties to be clear, open-minded, and willing to listen and learn. Thus, recognizing the pitfalls of subtext, and whatever leads to its false understanding, we can all work towards more effective communication. One that fosters understanding, professionalism , comapssion , and empathy. Why Clarity Has the Sharpest Razor Clear communication  relies on both the speaker's ability to express themselves effectively and the listener's ability to interpret the message accurately. When it comes to subtext, this interaction turns even more complex, especially for those who struggle with social cues. Therefore, based on the rationale of Occam's Razor , the sayings we should pick the most, are those who are the clearest. On the other hand, relying on subtext can lead to unnecessary complications.... A simpler, for competent choice is to embrace clarity. Say What You Mean:   Instead of relying on subtext, be direct and upfront about your message. Choose words that convey your exact meaning. Context is Key:  While avoiding subtext altogether might not always be possible, providing clearer context can significantly improve your message's impact. Explain your thoughts and feelings directly. Try eliminating room for misinterpretation. Conclusion Direct communication that also focuses on moral values such as compassion, empathy, kindness and peacefulness, is one you can use both to be understood, AND save yourself from regrettable conflicts. Conflict often involve coercion , which shouldn't be normalized for its negative affect on our mental health. Since we require to be in good mental health in order to think more rationally , we should use our words in ways that can improve it, not deter it. Both, in ourselves, and in those dear to us.

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

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

(Articles on death: https://www.philosocom.com/post/furthermore-on-death-and-reincarnation https://www.philosocom.com/post/death-as-but-a-utility-a-practical-philosophy https://www.philosocom.com/post/how-death-creates-life-the-irony-of-loss https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-deaths-of-the-corner-people On Philosocom's True Master... My Mysterious Late Grandmother, Esther Drucker https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-multi-layered-shadow-box-poem https://www.philosocom.com/post/salvation https://www.philosocom.com/post/you-chose-grief ) You should not lament over the inevitable. -- Bhagavad Gita (Background music) The Naturality of Death Death, a finite end of the mind's engagement with the illusory realm , is a natural state. The body, a vessel for consciousness, becomes obsolete when the mind's connection to the animated reality is severed. It then joins the inanimate objects of the external world, devoid of thought or sensation. The illusory realm,  often mistaken for the whole of reality , is the realm of the mind. It is the ceaseless chatter, the shared thoughts that bind us to our fellow beings. The world, however, is not merely existence within this life-made illusion. Rather, it is a conscious engagement with the true nature of reality, a realm beyond the limitations of the mind. Beyond the lively chatter of biological existence, the universe exists in a state of profound silence, of profound void. Only through the interplay of forces, of matter and energy , does sound emerge. The electric roar of machinery and technology, these are human-made disturbances in the cosmic symphony. Otherwise, the cosmos remains a silent, eternally desolate expanse, akin to the tranquillity of the grave. Other species throughout the stars are, too, biological and mechanical expressions of animated chatter. Mere chatter we learn to see as concrete, in order to survive. Life and Death as On and Off-line States Imagine your consciousness as a fragile network connection.  It is connected via something called the "Mental Dimension" is like the vast internet, a realm of information and experiences. A strong connection allows you to access and interact with this "digital universe" with greater freedom of action and desire. A weak connection limits your access and can even lead to disconnection (AKA premature death). The connection weakens through the naturality of trauma. Just as a slow internet connection can be caused by poor hardware, viruses, or interference, your connection to the Mental Dimension can be weakened by unhealthy habits,  negative thoughts , and harmful stimuli. Becoming mentally stronger is how you improve the anti-virus from within. Choosing positivity over negativity, helps as well. By nurturing your mind and body through practices like meditation ,  exercise,  and a healthy diet, you can strengthen your connection and improve your ability to navigate the digital realm of consciousness. Conversely, exposing yourself to harmful content, such as toxic relationships or addictive behaviors, can damage your connection to the mental realm, shared by humanity through intersubjectivity.  It's like downloading malware that corrupts your system. By avoiding these harmful influences, you can protect your connection and ensure that you remain grounded and centered. You can also subvert trauma and the pain of rejection , to build your mind to be stronger. Stronger than the desire to die. The stronger your connection to the Mental Dimension, the more fully you can experience and participate in "the digital world" of consciousness. Just as a high-speed internet connection allows you to stream videos, connect with others, and learn new things, a strong connection to the Mental Dimension allows you to access your full potential and live a fulfilling life. Mentality is, essentially, virtual, and our experience of the world is simulated like your computer simulating these words you read. The only escape from it is in the unknown death. To Enduringly Live , To Enduringly Seek The warrior's path, though filled with glory, is often short-lived.  The peaceful seeker, however, endures by avoiding conflicts which could disconnect him or her from their inner light, necessary to stay further from evitable death. It is in the balance between rest and the active pursuit of purpose that true fulfillment (or the fabric of happiness) could be embraced peacefully, without the need to cause much harm and ill to one another. To seek risk for the sake of thrill-seeking is to unnecessarily minimize one's potential in the long term... Why risk your life so much when you can live in stability? Cultivating a peaceful mind not only strengthens the connection between your inner world and society, but also preserves one's vitality and desire to be alive. Conclusions Each being is a vessel of potential, a seed able to either bloom or wither. To live a life of purpose is to nurture that seed, to cultivate its unique gifts. The inner light is not to be withered, or death will become sooner than expected. That light is to be kept through ethics, and thus, life itself is kept.   The limited time we have on this earth should be spent realizing our potential, leaving a lasting imprint on the world. For those burdened by despair,  know that death is inevitable.  Death's definition will eventually come regardless of your endeavors. There is no reason to hasten its arrival when so much potential remains to be realized. Embrace the journey,  cultivate your inner light,  and discover the beauty that lies within any of us. Beauty to be had, to be enjoyed, to be actualized.... and to be overcome.

"This will be a day long remembered. It has seen the end of Kenobi. It will soon see the end of the Rebellion". -- Darth Vader (Philosocom's directory on death: https://www.philosocom.com/post/defining-death )   (Background music) A Dance with Impermanence Everything that you chose to be attached to, will either end with your demise or with its demise. Therefore, when attachment is chosen, and unless your own death prevents said attachment -- you chose grief. By choosing to adopt a pet, by choosing to marry, the same applies. You have chosen to love something, whose ultimate absence will cause you grief, unless you are to die yourself beforehand. That is how existence is. For even the longest and most enduring of loves will diminish by the death of at least one of the participants. In the evident absence of immortality , by choosing to love someone, you also choose your own, inevitable possibility of a heartbreak. Aren't all ends that are not desirable, heartbreaking? Of course they are. And yet, there is no good thing that cannot come to an end. Choose your loyalty to it, and the finite nature of reality will take it away from you eventually. And there is nothing you can do about it. Be it lovers, be it friends, be it family. If they do not go away by treachery, they go away, either way, by the fact that none of them are everlasting. All the people that you cared for, including pets, are set to wither away. And there is nothing you can do to permanently prevent it. Accept reality , and you can better live according to it, knowing that fear of abandonment is a fear of something that is about to happen either way. Why should we be afraid of the inevitable, when we are powerless against it? Death will make everyone forsake us. Death will make us grieve as much as it would like to. It is, therefore, futile to rebel against it, under the assumption that we can overthrow its universal tyranny on all life. There is no eternity in the physical world, since nothing in it is invincible, nor immortal. Choose to be attached to something or someone in it, and you'll choose grief. Therefore, attachment is not only the source of much suffering, but also of grief, even to things which make you feel happy, proud and purposeful. Decrease your attachment from things and beings you don't need, and you will have less grief. Shower the world and everyone with innocent love, and you'll be deep in sorrow eventually, when you'll ultimately be left to your own devices. We are, universally and in a way, all loners. A Meditation on Mortality Since I am sensitive to this inevitable reality, I have chosen a path with fewer attachments. Disappointment, therefore, has become a distant guest. This awareness extends beyond the realm of personal relationships; I understand that nothing, not even the memory of my own existence, can escape the inevitable tide of time. The only person I have as much is myself, just like all of you do. Loving oneself... seem more rational than loving another, whether or not doing so would even lead to a better capacity of loving another. Meaning, I believe, is a fickle flame, flickering brightly but prone to sudden extinguishment. It is this very impermanence that makes chasing it a most-futile dance, potentially inflicting deep wounds on our hearts, making us almost-inevitably broken people. Meaning, if anything, deserves only to be worked on for the long-term. Have a meaning extend your own lifespan, and you've secured yourself a potential source of purposefulness that will provide you with satisfaction for the reminder of your life. It is also... why love may deserve to be secondary, and a lifelong work, be primary, if we want to suffer less by the heartbreak of impermanence. It's also a reason, to live for work, and not work to live. An organized collective based on love, such as family under marriage, can slowly decay once the emotions involved are no longer a feature. And emotions are such short-term, fleeting components... Basing relationships, for instance, exclusively on them, is like living in a house that is dirty of gasoline fluid. Once a trigger occurs, the whole foundation can burn to the ground. Emotions live shorter than us. However, the power of ideolog y can keep entire people in line for generations. In order to better deal with the mortality of life... we must look beyond our own lives. That can only be done should we learn to look beyond our emotions, and focus on grander visions for our organizations and other communities. Where the emotion of love and excitement wither, a greater plan, does not. And logic, in etymology, also means, "plan" ( AKA "logos" ). This is why reasoning will always outlast any foundation that is built on emotion. And why should we plan for the short-term, if we want to reduce the pains of broken hearts? Why build our hearts just to see them broken again? Why not be more calculated, and find sources of meaning that can very much outlast our own lives, thus likely not ending before we die? Life, in its very essence, is a pact with death. No living being has yet to defy this ultimate surrender. This knowledge casts a long shadow, even over our own demise, for it will undoubtedly cause grief to those who hold us dear. The only "way" we can beat Death is not by gaining immortality, for that is too unrealistic. The only way is to work towards things that exceed our own lives, and therefore, do not end, not before us, and not with us. When a lover dies before us, the heartache is doom to be ours. When we die after the lover, the lover is doomed to suffer after we die. We create this cycle even in a more intense way, when we choose to live for love, and not to live for anything that isn't an emotion. Of course we may love them after they die. But our love will never reach them, once they are dead. My journey, instead, is to embrace life fully until its natural conclusion, as a time for me to work, for I believe in using the present to honor my and other people's future. Two Questions For The Readership Choosing to bring life into this world is, in essence, choosing a dance with grief, a gamble where the dice of fate might roll against you or those you cherish. The question, then, becomes one of resilience: Are we strong enough to endure the inevitable sorrow that life brings? Also, we should ask ourselves: What can we do to reduce that sorrow? Contemplating on these questions, may help you endure life, better.

(Background music) Why Loyalty is Your Most Precious Asset Loyalty is the most important resource anyone could possibly have, and not only philosophers or any other kind of content creator -- but it is also the glue that keeps others attached to you, and makes them want you in their lives. Should their loyalty be too low, they would consider leaving or abandoning you, regardless of your past relationship with them. The family is usually the ultimate base of loyalty between the members within it, even if it is far from perfect. It is usually from there that you receive unconditional love from your parents, or perhaps from other family members as well. Abandon your family, and you will abandon the most elementary base of loyalty you'll probably ever have in your life. Of course, there are exceptions because not all people get a good enough family when they are born, but I digress. Understanding Loyalty as the Currency of Connection Loyalty doesn't necessarily have to come from patriotism or adoration. The fact that you keep reading my articles, for instance, is a demonstration of your loyalty to Philosocom . You aren't a subordinate, you aren't below me. Loyalty can also simply be being constantly interested in someone and what they have to offer. A business with no regular visitors, is a poor one. Anything that you do regularly, such as buying the same product from the same brand, or reading from the same source, is a demonstration of loyalty. Consistency is, essentially, a good proof that you're loyal to something , be it a person, a brand, or an activity. Loyalty is extremely important to anyone who wishes to survive and has something to offer to others. Be it to his or her community, to their country, or in this site's case -- to humanity. If you don't have enough loyal customers, they might start buying from your competitors, which means that you'll be losing the money required to keep a roof over your head and pay the bills. Thus, it is the elementary duty of the business owner, a creator, and so on, to not only keep loyalty, but improve it, as well. Success in that department, can bring success overall. It's also essential for any religion that wishes to remain relevant, in a world that is arguably getting more and more secular. Lose more and more communities within your religion, and the power of your faith might decrease on a regional or global scale. Politics is also about loyalty, and the public philosopher ought to be versed in it, as well, in order to build a powerbase . Loyalty is, indeed, a fight for relevancy , to be important enough in the eyes of others, that they will desire to be in your presence, buy your goods, listen to your words, read your material, and so on. As you can see, it is a very essential, abstract resource between at least two bodies. And at the times, that may include your loyalty to the company you're working for. Cultivating Loyalty through Authenticity and Open Discourse There are two ways to gain loyalty. The first is to get it naturally from people who are willing, and the other is by force, which is the far less desired one, unless you live in a dictatorship ( or are the dictator ). How do we know, for example, who is the bad guy in a movie? If he kills someone for treason or for insubordination, just to get the rest of his henchmen more loyal, then we may know that he is, indeed, the antagonist of the movie. The concept of "blind loyalty" is dumb because we humans are skeptical beings. Not purely, no, but partially, at the very least... If we do not adore someone or something strongly enough, we cannot force it to come from our hearts. Honest loyalty is like water, it is spontaneous. Force people to be loyal, and they will question either your authority, validity, or credibility. (But! It does not mean that humans cannot be blinded by loyalty, different factors will turn them to become such. When they turn into blind loyalists, they are, essentially, fanatics .) The only exception I can think of is in the military, where you ought to listen to your superiors without question, simply because that's how things are there. A military with no subordination can easily be a very disorganized, incompetent warband, that might as well betray its own authorities and countries. The greatest loyalty someone can have in order to survive, is loyalty to money . Many of us work merely for the sake of getting money, and to be sincere, that alone can be a good enough reason to keep working. It is far better than volunteering while needing to make a living. You don't exactly buy food at the store with good will alone. Loyalty is, arguably, something that can be either for one's own interests or for wanting to be a part of a bigger cause than themselves. The feeling of being a part of a group or an organization, that you can feel belongs to, is a very rewarding incentive. That incentive becomes dangerous when the organization quickly becomes a cult or any other authoritarian regime, led by a leader whom you are expected to respect without question. This drive for collectivity can also nurture a herd mentality. A philosopher should not ask for blind loyalty from his or her audience, simply because doubt is an important element of philosophizing . A philosopher who is not ready to admit that they are wrong sometimes, even if they are not wrong currently, is a bad philosopher. An ideology shouldn't be made into something superior to the search for the truth, because if you do so, you ruin the whole reasoning of becoming a philosopher -- to seek what is correct and reveal what is incorrect. Philosophy is the study of truth. It isn't the art of indoctrination . Every member of a philosopher's community should be strong enough to doubt the philosopher's findings and insights, because if they do not, they risk overlooking the importance of criticism. Even great philosophers can and should be doubted, so why not everything and everyone else? And I myself, can critique anything that moves, so to speak. It's one of the reasons I wrote so much. An open discussion between at least two sides, is ultimately the healthiest of ways loyalty can be created; where members can feel free to voice their thoughts, and where the "leader" or "authority" can feel strong enough to receive them. Offense, however, is the greatest liability to the receiving side, if said side is sensitive. (Perhaps, the best community a public philosopher can make, is one that's based on democratic leadership . I, however, choose to maintain readership instead. A readership and a community are not the same. I don't have the energies to build a philosophical community. I'm working around the clock, managing this content empire.) Beyond the Thin Skin What I think some people fail to realize is that wanting to not be offended, does not mean the receiving end is not interested in criticism. Some people are, unfortunately, more sensitive than others, and if open thinking is to be generated in a framework, then tolerance should be created in the name of better interaction, trust, and loyalty in general. To put it briefly, loyalty is simply any reason, strong enough to make people stay by your side. Retain and improve their loyalty, and you will increase the promising possibilities of your craft. Demoralize them, and they will either leave, betray, or both. Nurture blind loyalty, and if you're successful, which you shouldn't, you can become a cult leader. This is both a positive and negative value. Make sure you handle it wisely. In yourself, and in others. Downsides of Loyalty To quote this saying shared by anonymous: One mistake you should never make in this life is to allow yourself to be recruited, by someone, to hate another person who hasn't wronged you. Only a fool inherits other people's enemies as a sign of loyalty. Loyalty, while a generally positive trait, can have some drawbacks depending on the situation. In order to look both ways , consider the negative aspects of loyalty. Missed opportunities:   Being overly loyal to a person, company, or idea can blind you to better options. For example, if you stay at a job you hate out of loyalty to the company, like a salaryman may do , you might miss out on a job you love at a different company. Being taken advantage of:  People who know you're loyal might try to exploit that loyalty. This could be expressed in a narcissist and their victim , this could be a friend who constantly borrows money and never pays you back, or a company that offers you lower wages because they know you won't leave either way. That is how your affiliation bias plays against you. Lack of growth:   If you're always loyal to the status quo, you might be less likely to challenge yourself and try new things. This can hinder your personal and professional growth. In fictional organizations, like the authoritarian Galactic Empire , loyalty leads to creative stagnation. Unhealthy relationships:   Loyalty is important in relationships, but it shouldn't come at the expense of your own well-being. If you're in a relationship with someone who is abusive or toxic, staying out of loyalty isn't healthy. Loyalty can be exploited by the very person or faction you're loyal to, under their ulterior motives. Herd Mentality:   Blind loyalty to a group can lead to a mentality where everyone agrees with each other even if they have doubts. This can lead to poor decision-making, due to the intellectual and practical value of doubt. It's important to find a balance between loyalty and critical thinking. Be loyal to those who are worthy of your faith in them. Inspect them, judge their character, and see if they are trustworthy.

(Philosocom's Directory On the Intellect) Article Synopsis by Mr. J. Igwe and Co. The article "Why Science and Philosophy Are Imperfect (And Why It Could be a Good Thing)" presents a compelling argument that the inherent imperfections of science and philosophy are their greatest strengths. It encourages readers to embrace doubt and questioning as vital components of intellectual growth. Mr. Tomasio presents a well-articulated argument that highlights the dynamic nature of scientific and philosophical inquiry, emphasizing how doubt and questioning are crucial components of both fields. This perspective offers a fresh and thoughtful approach to understanding the roles of science and philosophy in human progress. The article offers a balanced examination of faith vs. reason, acknowledging the appeal of faith-based knowledge while questioning its validity in comparison to the constantly evolving nature of scientific and philosophical understanding. The use of metaphors and imagery effectively illustrates the endless pursuit of understanding, making abstract concepts more relatable and memorable to the reader. The article also encourages intellectual humility and curiosity by acknowledging that humans are inherently limited in their capacity for knowledge. It also advocates for continuous questioning and curiosity, positioning these as key virtues in both science and philosophy. This positive message aligns with the broader goal of fostering a culture of critical thinking and open-mindedness. Overall, the article succeeds in promoting a thoughtful reflection on the value of imperfection in our pursuit of knowledge.   (Background music) How Science and Philosophy Fuel Our Understanding Science and philosophy have a common goal in mind -- to better understand the mysteries of existence. Unlike some religions, which might claim to possess definitive answers, science and philosophy are, by default, flawed. They are flawed for they always needed to be doubted in order to have their bodies of knowledge advance forward. As such, doubt is an uncanny virtue. But this is flaw's not a weakness. It's a strength. It is precisely the flaws, the problems, and the conflicts that drive us to seek solutions to our questions and problems. These default limitations push scientists to constantly test and refine their theories, while philosophers grapple with fundamental questions and challenge existing assumptions. This ongoing process of questioning and refinement is what fuels our ever-expanding understanding of the universe and ourselves. Therefore, due to them being an asset, a tool, flaws are to be embraced. A Flawed Yet Enduring Journey Science and philosophy, in their relentless pursuit of understanding, grapple with a fundamental question: Can we ever unlock all the mysteries of existence? Perhaps the vastness of the universe and the intricacies of consciousness will forever remain partially veiled from our grasp. After all, as humans, we are inherently limited in our capacity for knowledge, forever away from omniscience without ever truly reaching it. The quest for omniscience is a Sisyphic one. However, by embracing the existentialist approach to the monotony of our work as intellects, we can still be motivated to resume our efforts nevertheless, deeming it our calling, and not our burden. This limitation stands in grand contrast to the pronouncements of some religions. They claim for definitive answer, found as absolute knowledge, often housed in sacred texts or pronouncements from revered figures. Religious folk may claim that it is through faith, and not through the study of philosophy, where the truth can be found. And as such, faith becomes not a substitute to knowledge, but the key to it, instead. If to quote the article in The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy on Faith: Faith is thus understood as a kind of basic knowledge attended by a certainty that excludes doubt. ...Faith-knowledge is not only ‘revealed to our minds’ but also ‘sealed upon our hearts’. But if such a key exists, one that is revealed to us, one wonders why its secrets remain hidden, and deserve of trust (AKA faith) when it has been proven that doubt is useful to research the truth. Why wouldn't these answers be readily shared with the world, rendering the endeavors of scientists, philosophers obsolete, through the need to always be questioning? After all, if a path to ultimate understanding has already been laid out, through credible research methods, wouldn't it be the most rational course of action for all humanity to follow it? After all, trust is to be gained through demonstration of a claim, not just through its mere statement (like through a testimony, which could be proven false). The very act of claiming absolute knowledge through several trust-related biases , exposes a potential flaw. Perfection, by definition, leaves no room for error, for it is pure of it . However, how can one be certain of absolute perfection without acknowledging the possibility of flaws? Without flaws in paradigms that aim to show us the truth, the need for philosophy and science wouldn't exist, as they are first and foremost methods of discovery. If these paradigms, or models of truth, leave no necessary room for doubt, which can be proven, then all we're left to do is to study them and not commit to philosophy nor to science. This problem of unchecked certainty, which deserves to be questioned like everything else , isn't unique to religion. It manifests in individuals, nations, and anything blindly worshipped, and in any society or individuals that would condemn you for questioning. Love itself can fall prey to this tendency, painting its object in idealized hues, oblivious to the cracks beneath the surface, and to the pain that follows. The pursuit of knowledge, despite its inherent limitations, is a far more rewarding and enduring endeavor than the embrace of supposed infallibility. Science and philosophy, with their openness to revision and questioning, allow humanity to engage in a continuous journey of exploration. Although this imperfect process may never grant us complete understanding, it is through this very struggle that we continue to learn, grow, and expand our grasp of the universe and ourselves. Between Certainty and the Embrace of Ignorance We often associate philosophy with the "love of wisdom," yet the act of philosophizing can often be a far cry from a blissful state. Those who delve into philosophical inquiry often grapple with the uncomfortable reality , hidden by blissful ignorance. However, ignorance isn't always a blessing. This chronic, seemingly-eternal state of unknowing can be unsettling, when entire theories can collapse in face of new evidence, thus proving you wrong after much time of thinking you're in the right. Compare this to a scientist that's constantly revising their theories in the face of new evidence. This inherent limitation of human understanding extends beyond philosophy. The promise of absolute knowledge, often promised in concepts like the infallibility of the church , presents an enticing alternative. The comfort of a definitive answer key, enshrined in sacred texts or pronouncements, seems far less demanding than the never-ending quest for truth. It therefore appeals to the human mind, which often works on shortcuts , and diminishes in comparison the relevancy of philosophy . Yet, accepting such pronouncements without question raises concerns. Blind acceptance, devoid of critical examination, can lead to idleness and decline of intellectual curiosity. Furthermore, the very claim of absolute certainty can be suspect. How can one be truly certain of perfect knowledge without acknowledging the possibility of error? This struggle between the allure of certainty and the embrace of ignorance can be present all aspects of human experience . We crave simple solutions and definitive answers, yet true growth often stems from grappling with complexity and acknowledging the limits of our understanding. While the notion of never achieving omniscience may seem daunting, it is this very sisyphic struggle that fuels our intellectual journey, and elevates our understanding towards greater heights. It is through the ongoing process of questioning, revising, and exploring that we expand our knowledge and understanding of the universe. Perhaps the true value lies not in the destination of perfect knowledge, but in the very act of exploration itself, that leads to far-shorter-ranged goals for our intellects. The pursuit of specific knowledge, with all its imperfections and frustrations that may follow, is what needs to be sought more practically, than the unrealistic notion of absolute knowledge. Like generations before us, and those that follow, we may never reach a point of absolute understanding. However, this shouldn't hinder our progress in any field of research, where we still have much available to discover.

Directory on Help and Rectification: https://www.philosocom.com/post/philosophizing-on-capitalism https://www.philosocom.com/post/where-philosophy-helps-most-using-philosophy-as-a-way-to-extend-our-lifespan-by-mr-c-kingsley-an https://www.philosocom.com/post/habit-and-help https://www.philosocom.com/post/toledo-sword https://www.philosocom.com/post/tikkunolam https://www.philosocom.com/post/all-i-want https://www.philosocom.com/post/blaise-pascal https://www.philosocom.com/post/unbreakable-will https://www.philosocom.com/post/global-cooperation https://www.philosocom.com/post/rectification https://www.philosocom.com/post/being-young https://www.philosocom.com/post/just-one-man https://www.philosocom.com/post/love-and-virtue https://www.philosocom.com/post/violence Compassionate Capitalism: The Key to a Better World https://www.philosocom.com/post/fortress https://www.philosocom.com/post/philosophical-reflection The Article (Background music) If we would help each other as a habit , the world would be a better place to live in. If we extended our hearts to help those in need, we could make this world a better place to live in -- one person at a time. I recall the joy of giving a snack to a homeless man on a New Year's Eve. He was grateful and wished me a happy year. I could've ignored him like anyone else in that street, but the difference between me and others is that I enjoy helping others. When I help someone, I think of how they've benefitted thanks to me, and I feel grateful. Grateful for the opportunity to help. All and all, I have a free philosophy blog just for you because of the same reason -- I enjoy helping people. As an ascetic I don't live on much. My diet is very strict, and I went out of my way to help a lot of people. I gave them hope to live another day and if it weren't for me, they could've done horrible things to themselves. It goes beyond people's heads but, all I want to do is to help make this world a better place to live in. I know that in my contributions to the world, I create a ripple effect of rectification . By helping one person I make their day which then allows them to function better, which then helps them do their jobs, which then helps their company, which then contributes better and so on. We all share the same world. The boundaries between countries are artificial. We are all interconnected by rules of cause and effect and I found that by helping people, I rid myself of my darkness and feel better. I feel I will always want to help people because that's what makes me happy. I already helped a lot of people in my contributions, and I live in a solitary manner because I don't want my good nature to be exploited. The problem with help is that there are people who aren't worthy of help. Ungrateful people who would leave you the moment you do something they don't like. It's vital to be able to distinguish between people who are worthy of help and people who aren't. Use your intuition to figure out who is trustworthy and who is not. I know that trusting people is a matter of luck and as such I don't overly risk myself. I am an ascetic who has forsaken this world a second time because I believe this world has failed. A world that makes people want to take their own lives is not a world I find desirable to live in. Instead, I find it a world that deserves to be rectified. I believe that one of the reasons this world has failed is because people are not taught to help others. Instead, they are taught to help themselves above all. Instead of cooperation, the world is overly competitive . Instead of harmony and peace we have struggles to preserve our current positions and to survive as individuals, instead of as a species. I think there is a good reason why helping others is enjoyable -- it's what we are supposed to do, to survive not as individuals but as a species. If the human species helped each other more, rather than let politicians divide us by hate , this world would be a better place to live in. Ever since I was a child, I helped my grandmother be happier. In her final years she was far happier thanks to me, compared to the rest of her lifetime. I believe that we should be there for the very elders that have brought us and our parents into this world and learn from them. That's why, as a child, I visited my late grandmother often. Throughout my life I felt depressed because I wasn't given the opportunity to contribute in the education system. I was told that I should keep things to myself and not overly express myself. I think my grandmother had managed to educate me better than the schools I went to back when I was a student. It is only through helping others that I managed to get out of that depression and feel better. Helping others makes me feel relevant. Helps me feel like I am not wasting my time , that I'm not a "klumnik". After I help, I think of the good that I've done and it helps gratify me. Sometimes I think I am too good for this world because my ethics are incompatible with this divisive, twisted world that's built on competition and injustice. The reason why I don't have many connections is because a man with very few connections is a very secure man. I only help when I decide to, and don't want to be exploited. Also, writing, my prime directive, is a very solitary craft. I was mesmerized by the ideal world my late grandmother described to me in her Pax Ethica philosophy -- a world where, in her words, "dogs don't chase after cats and vice versa"; a world with no wars or battles. A peaceful, stable world. And in my behaviour and actions, I try to bring forth that world. A world of good. A world where we care for each other. A world of harmony. I know I am just one man, but I want to keep building this free empire of articles because helping is what I enjoy doing the most. I care less for profit because I have just about enough to live. With all my heart I want to build a wonderland of philosophy where visitors would flock and enjoy. I want to rectify the world passively, through my and other people's articles, as I rest and respite and live my life. I want a better world than this one, and instead of merely wishing for it, I actively sit down and write. I actively become the change I want to see in this world. I think that only if we would be willing to cooperate with each other, instead of fighting one another for our survival, would this world be a better place to live in. Ideally, wars and battles should be a final resort, not immediate, impulsive choices. Only when we will be willing to help each other to survive together, instead of "to each their own", this world would be a better place to live in. The gratification of helping others is therefore very rational because we all share the same home -- Planet Earth. That's why I went my way and saved people. The fact that we are all interconnected was always elementary to me. As long as we allow ourselves to be divided by cultures that foster hate instead of harmony, we would continue to deteriorate this world instead of repairing it. Even if this world is beyond repair, I refuse to be heartless. Helping others is just way too fun for me. With all my heart I shall keep walking the path of the truly good person , even if it means being alone with very few people to talk to, out of security reasons. I shall see it through that I shall continue to live as a shadow in the real world, not seek fame for the sake of fame, and not seek to cater to a failing world , because all I want to do is to build a better world within the greater world. A world of stability, a world of harmony and peace, because helping others is what makes me happy.

(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 Culture) Her Articles: https://www.philosocom.com/post/philosophical-discussion https://www.philosocom.com/post/trying-again https://www.philosocom.com/post/patience https://www.philosocom.com/post/stop-overthinking https://www.philosocom.com/post/discipline https://www.philosocom.com/post/tomasio-rubinshtein-1 https://www.philosocom.com/post/art-of-earning https://www.philosocom.com/post/right-investment https://www.philosocom.com/post/philosophical-reflection (Background music) Introduction Praise for justice is easy, but putting it into practice is challenging.  When we are lucky, we forget it, but when we are hurt, we utilize it.  Justice, according to philosophy, is a method: a disciplined way of seeing people, causes, laws, and outcomes.  This essay investigates how justice may evolve from a phrase to a habit—how a life, business, or society can become fair not by chance, but by design. The goal is practical: seven dimensions of justice, each with a clear route from concept to everyday practice, followed by a closing moral that connects the dots. 1. Persons as Ends, not Means  Philosophical discussion of justice starts with dignity . A fair existence presupposes that each individual is an end in themselves, not just a tool for someone else's agenda. In reality, this implies that choices are made with the permission and interest of people impacted, rather than just for them.   It is the distinction between utilizing people's tales to embellish our arguments and genuinely hearing the allegations those stories make about ourselves.  When dignity is prioritized, rules become discussions rather than impositions, and relationships seem legal in the greatest sense: led by respect that does not sway to convenience. 2. Equality of Worth and Clarity of Difference  Justice is not uniformity. Treating dissimilar instances similarly is as unfair as treating like cases differently. Persons have equal value notwithstanding significant variations in need, history, and restriction. A just practice investigates what justice demands in this situation, rather than what seems to be symmetrical. Fairness might entail equitable sharing or tailored help to make opportunities really accessible.  Philosophically, this is the transition from crass equality to equity—the kind of equality that is concerned with whether individuals can genuinely stand where the rules allow them to. 3. Reasons to Show Your Critics Power without explanation develops anger , whereas explanation without honesty fosters skepticism.  Justice exists when arguments are public, consistent, and compelling enough to persuade a reasonable opponent. If you can't explain why a rule exists, it's not fit to govern. If you can't explain how a judgment may be challenged or altered, you haven't designed a fair procedure.  Providing answers is the currency of legitimacy, not a sign of civility. The more explicit the logic, the more peaceful, even controversial, conclusions may be accepted. 4. Procedure and Outcome in Honest Tension Some argue that justice is primarily procedural—fair rules, open hearings, and equal opportunities.  Others argue that justice is mostly about the outcome—whether people are housed, educated , healthy, and safe. A philosophical perspective rejects the false choice.  While end without process is force, process without result is drama.  Just institutions pose two questions simultaneously: Was the procedure fair? Did it consistently create humane outcomes?  When either response fails, modification is required.  This two-sided perspective prevents us from calling a failure fair because we followed all of the stages, or a shortcut merely because we like where it landed. 5. Accountability, Chance, and Repair Work  We hold individuals accountable; luck complicates everything. Some are born into bigger doors, safer neighborhoods, and more reliable mentors. Justice acknowledges this without abolishing the organization.  As a consequence, we have a twofold ethic: we require individuals to account for their decisions, and we push communities to rectify the unequal starting lines that compound the penalty of minor errors.  Repair may take the shape of second opportunities, accessible paths back into shared assets, and rules that limit the role of accident in shaping a life.  Justice without repair becomes cruelty, and repair without accountability results in drift.  Together, they create moral sense. 6. Listening Before Judgment Judgment without hearing is a type of theft: we violate the other person's right to be understood.  Just practicing slows down enough to hear how activities seemed from a different perspective.  This is not sentimentalism; it is the minimum prerequisite for a reasonable reaction.  People vary not simply in what they do, but also in what they intended to do, how they viewed their alternatives, and the pressures they experienced.  Listening sharpens judgment, transforming harsh penalties into nuanced replies and many arguments into manageable misunderstandings.  If justice is the proper relationship between people, listening is the key to that relationship. 7. Everyday Fairness: Simple Rules That Scale Grand statements about justice are meaningless if our everyday actions contradict them.  Everyday fairness is founded on simple norms that we can realistically follow: honor commitments; reveal conflicts of interest; credit ideas where they originated; apologize exactly when you wrong ; freely provide compliments and assign criticism sensibly; Do not hoard positive information or hide unpleasant news.  These behaviors are not ornamental. They are the everyday mechanisms that make a fair culture apparent and sustainable. A person who lives with them transforms rooms into safer spaces to think and work. Conclusion—The Moral of the Story  Justice is not an abstract monument; it is a set of lived commitments : dignity first, equality of worth with consideration for difference, reasons that stand up to scrutiny, procedures married to humane outcomes, responsibility tempered by repair, judgment informed by listening, and small, repeatable habits that make fairness ordinary.  The lesson is straightforward and difficult to forget: be the kind of person whose reasons can be shown to those most impacted, whose rules you would accept if you swapped places, and whose habits make it simpler for others to stand erect.  Practice this, and justice will no longer be a flag hoisted during a crisis.  It becomes the tone of your existence—the constant rhythm through which trust is developed, wrongs are righted, and shared living becomes not only feasible, but also beneficial.

(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 ) (Directory on Rectification and Help) (T. Siddika's Articles) (Background music) Introduction to the Philosophical Reflection Every human being asks at some point: What does it mean to live as a true human? Is it to achieve wealth, to build power , or to leave behind knowledge? Philosophy answers differently. To be human is not merely to exist, but to live with monushotto (humanity) and bibek (conscience). These are not gifts we receive fully formed, but qualities we must cultivate through reflection, discipline , and ethical living. A society may build great cities and advance in science , but without humanity and conscience, it collapses inward, becoming cruel and restless. The ancient philosophers understood this well. As Aristotle declared, “Educating the mind without educating the heart is no education at all.” Thus, the task of philosophy is not only to sharpen thought, but to awaken compassion and guide conscience — so that we may live well with ourselves and with others. Humanity: The Heart of Being Human Humanity is not a luxury ; it is the essence of our being. It is the recognition that each person, regardless of status , carries an equal dignity. When we see the suffering of another and feel it as our own, we touch the core of humanity. The Stoics believed that all people share a common reason, a divine spark within. This view dissolves the illusion of separateness to harm another is to wound oneself. Humanity is therefore not mere sentiment, but a philosophical stance the affirmation that all life is interconnected. Without humanity, intelligence becomes manipulation , and power becomes tyranny . But with humanity, even the smallest action carries greatness, for it honors the shared value of life. Conscience: The Inner Tribunal While humanity teaches us to feel, conscience teaches us to discern. Bibek is the inner tribunal before which every action is judged. We may deceive others , but not this inner witness. As Immanuel Kant wrote, “Two things fill the mind with awe: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.” Conscience is not automatic; it requires cultivation. Just as the body must be trained to gain strength, conscience must be exercised through reflection, self-examination , and dialogue. Socrates spoke of the daimonion, the inner voice that warns against injustice . In our time, when external noise overwhelms inner silence, to listen to conscience is itself a philosophical act of courage. Cultivating Humanity in the Self How does one grow humanity within? Philosophy suggests three practices: Empathy through Imagination: To place oneself in another’s situation is to break the walls of selfishness. This was the essence of Rousseau’s moral philosophy. Simplicity of Life: Excessive desire hardens the heart. By living simply , we create space for compassion. The Buddha’s path of moderation remains a timeless guide. Recognition of Shared Fragility: All humans suffer, age, and die. Awareness of this common condition awakens tenderness rather than arrogance . Humanity is not abstract; it must become habitual. When practiced daily, it shapes character until kindness becomes second nature. Training Conscience Through Philosophy Conscience, too, requires deliberate training. Philosophy offers methods for this discipline: Reflection and Dialogue: As Socrates showed, questioning one’s life is the path to virtue. By asking “Why is this right” or “Would I accept this if done to me” we sharpen our moral sense. Moral Imagination: Reading philosophy, literature, and history trains us to weigh different perspectives, strengthening conscience against ignorance . Accepting Guilt as Teacher: Rather than fleeing from guilt, philosophy urges us to examine it. Guilt reveals the gap between our action and our ideal — a painful but fruitful guide. Through such practices, conscience becomes less a whisper and more a steady guide. The Union of Humanity and Conscience Humanity without conscience is blind feeling; conscience without humanity is cold judgment. Only together do they create genuine moral life. A human being guided by both can love wisely and act justly. Consider justice it is not merely following law , but balancing compassion with principle. A judge without humanity is merciless; a friend without conscience may excuse harm. Philosophy teaches that true goodness requires both — the warm heart and the clear mind. Challenges in a Troubled Age In our age of speed, competition , and digital distraction, both humanity and conscience are at risk. People rush past one another, chasing profit while forgetting presence. Violence, exploitation, and dishonesty grow where conscience falls silent. Yet, this very age demands more philosophy, not less. To pause and cultivate humanity is to resist indifference . To strengthen conscience is to resist corruption . The more the world forgets its humanity, the greater becomes the philosopher’s duty to remind it. Practical Philosophy: Helping Others Through Self-Work One cannot truly help others without first working on oneself. Philosophy is not escape from life but preparation for it. By nurturing humanity, we develop compassion to act; by sharpening conscience, we develop wisdom to act rightly. When we help others from this foundation, our actions are not shallow charity but profound solidarity. To feed the hungry, to comfort the grieving, to speak truth against injustice — these flow naturally from a person who has united humanity and conscience within. Conclusion — The Moral of the Story Philosophy teaches that to be human is more than to breathe; it is to cultivate monushotto and bibek until they shape every thought and deed. Humanity without conscience risks sentimentality; conscience without humanity risks cruelty. But together, they form the core of a life well lived . The moral is clear before we can change the world , we must first change ourselves. By nurturing humanity in our hearts and conscience in our minds, we prepare to become instruments of peace, justice, and love. As Rumi said, “Be like a tree and let the dead leaves drop.” In shedding selfishness and pride, we grow into true humans, capable of healing a wounded world.

(Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Despair and Surrender) (Background music) (Note: This is a special piece that will not be renovated to be kept in the present day, and will not be updated in information, in order to preserve some of the past. Past I can reflect on. I am not keen on forgetting the past. The past can help us forge a better future .   More on my philosophy on the past has been written). After years of abstinence, where I voluntarily gave up on the "golden" parts of teenagehood and, from now on, young adulthood as well, it seems that I managed to actually tear apart my long-felt crave for romantic love and comfort. I did this not because I am afraid of love, but because I really see it as something that limits our freedom and confines us to a specific person and to our relations with that person. You might be wondering why someone would do that, why would someone choose by free will to give up on something that largely appears to be a central part of human life. Here, I will attempt to answer this question -- how and why I gave up on love. 2020 was a year of both physical and mental isolation , forced by a lockdown that managed to collapse the entire world. Thinking about that year, I've realized that it didn't really affect my functioning and way of life, as I am already a man who isolates himself from both physical, social, and romantic contact. I have always been a bit of a loner , and I have always found it difficult to connect with people on a deep level. I am not sure why this is, but I think it may have something to do with my upbringing. I was raised in a very strict household, and I was never really allowed to express myself freely. This may have led to me developing a fear of intimacy, and a belief that I am not good enough for anyone. Whatever the reason, I have always been content with my solitary existence. I have my own hobbies and interests, and I am perfectly happy spending time by myself. I do not feel lonely or isolated, and I do not feel the need to be in a relationship. I know that some people may find this strange, but it is simply the way I am. I am not afraid of love, but I do not see it as something that is essential for my happiness. I am content with my life as it is, and I do not see any reason to change it. Or at least was, for the most part. Seeing other people online craving to get back to the way things were, to be able to hug, kiss, date, and make love, appears very alien to me because that desire for intimate contact no longer exists within me... Even though it sure did, like a decade ago, it decreased significantly afterwards. (Only to rise again... eventually) It feels strange when I'm comparing myself with others in the regard of physical intimacy, because it's as if I too am supposed to desire it. However, as long as I have something to do in the time I have, intimacy is far, far from important to me. I'm not talking necessarily about sex but about even glimpses of affection. It appears I no longer have a desire, let alone need, to love and to be loved. Therefore, it seems that my initial theory about solitude was correct. Humans (at least some, in this case), as adaptable animals, can adapt so well into an environment to the extent of even being able to overcome things we see as fundamental to human life, such as the quest for a partner to be your companion and to provide for your needs . At least some, can, like Beethoven and Issac Newton , who died alone? We are told by society that we are social and even romantic animals, and that it is not good to be alone. And yet, I spent most of my time in solitude. I talk to people only a few minutes a day and nothing more. I wonder if I managed to actually overcome the social nature embedded in humans. I don't know if anyone can overcome their inherit social nature (assuming everyone have it inherited), but I believe I know that, if you manage to be alone for long periods of time, even if you are by nature an extroverted person, then you too can have a chance at converting your nature to that of a more solitary one. As said before, it's like literally tearing apart the social aspects of yourself. For example, back when I saw more people on a regular basis, I indeed was more talkative and had a bigger desire to socialize and to see these people. However, when the frame under which we were meeting disappeared, the "need" to socialize was indeed merely a desire to pass the time, something that can be done nonetheless with all modern conveniences. Hmm... Seems like we are a very adaptive species. And yet, an important question that has been left unanswered is, why would anyone choose solitude over the company of another, let alone, become more solitary-by-nature? What is there in solitude that does not exist in socializing? I can at least answer from my own perspective, that the outside world isn't as rewarding and gratifying to most as it is to few, including me. I can even confess that most of my suffering throughout life was a product of interacting with others, familiar as strangers, and that solitude was far more comforting, rewarding, and benefitting for me than society has ever been. However, I don't choose solitude over society because of gratification alone. Becoming somewhat of a hermit had given me the absence of distractions I needed to become far more productive as a writer, as some of you may already tell. Writing, while a form of communication , is a very, very solitary activity, requiring both focus and as much minimal distractions as possible. Even in my life at school, I needed much privacy to just be able to focus, whether it was homework or the books I was working on. I hope that you can better tell why I prefer solitude over company, and why I am relatively happy when I realize my social nature has been significantly diminished in favor of a more solitary one. Whether those were bullies, trolls, or just people who didn't understand my condition , the External World treated me quite poorly, and while not everyone were like that, the influence of the former was significant. You may claim that I see the world in a darker shade , when in reality I simply tell what I feel and think, without necessarily biasing it to match my narrative. Realizing that my former suffering was significantly decreased when I was alone, I am confident when I say that I do not like people in general, and hence why I prefer giving up on my social nature, along with the things that come with it, such as affectionate physical contact that many in this world find to be missing in their lives. I can be a nice and polite person, but that doesn't have to contradict what I just said. I believe that, based on my example, you too can become more free by practicing solitude , and it even can make you more independent, even from the basic level of the desire to socialize and even from the desire to be in love. The only reason I am open-minded to the possibility of being in a relationship is because I have never been in one, and wish for further evidence in my contemplations, along with more credibility. Other than that, I don't really see it as a basic need like I used to. And this is how, and why, I gave up on love. ................... But no more. The best revenge is living well. After nine years, I am back. Back and willing more than ever. Willing, more than ever, to get the woman I think I deserve. Whoever you will be. I am more of a romanticist than any of you might think. I simply repress it, as I do many things. As I wrote before, only I know myself, for only I have been in my subconsciousness. And likewise, my former love-of-my-life will pay. Pay. With the success I deserve.... ....And the success the lady deserves. Article Review by Alex Mos What is romantic Love? There are many definitions and countless expressions of affection, yet nobody can describe it accurately. Being in romantic Love is desired, idealized, and frequently depicted in art because of its euphoric, energizing, and beautifying properties . Sometimes, Love can be feared and criticized for its irrational, addictive nature and the emotional vulnerability it causes. To love and be loved back is a mix of confusing feelings of strength and surrender, adoration of each other, fear of loss , and mutual sexual arousal. Unanswered, failed, or abusive Love can be traumatic and lead to obsession, aggressive behavior, depression, and despair.   Romantic Love is as old as humanity. Yet, the recognized right to form legal unions with a lover is relatively new. Traditionally, marriages between men and women were transactional and aimed to produce offspring as "God commended and Nature intended."   Benedict Douglas argues that the modern account of Love shares a moral foundation with human rights, which involve individuals' capacity to choose how to live. A fundamental freedom to love a person we fell in Love with seems obvious; however, Love is one of psychology's most complicated human concepts and has been strictly regulated through the ages by highly discriminatory societal and religious norms. The liberty to love, including the legal protection of same-sex unions, equality of all partners in marriages, freedom of sexual expression, family values, and rights of minors and children , is a crucial aspect of human rights.   The essence of Love lies in the profound desire for togetherness. In Plato's Symposium, Aristophanes tells how Zeus split a pre-human spherical being into two counterparts, becoming two humans. Although Plato argues that Love should be a search for the ultimate good, not one particular person, I interpret his myth as a metaphorical reminder that every human has an "entangled," perfectly fitting counterpart. In Love, the counterparts intuitively form deep mental connections besides undergoing the usual physiological changes. The mental alignment of both counterparts amplifies each other's energy waves, making the lovers more energetic, relaxed, and healthier. The "lovers-counterparts" do not seek societal validation, an internal power struggle, or gender role abuse because they live in mutual harmony and understanding. If one partner thrives, so does the other, and vice versa. They complete but do not limit each other, becoming the best versions of themselves.

Alex Mos's Synopsis: Philosophers can be allegorically divided into two factions: Wizards and Sorcerers. The "Wizards" are academics who mastered philosophy by studying it. The "Sorcerers" are philosophers with innate abilities to philosophize with or without a conventional education in the field. Getting an academic degree is the most respected way to become a philosopher; however, some philosophers became influential thinkers without education. People often underestimate the natural talent to philosophize and believe a degree is needed to be an accomplished philosopher. The author's innate skills prove them wrong , as he has written hundreds of articles and books without academic schooling. Philosophy should not be limited to academia. It can and should be practiced by anybody with an affinity for logical thinking and empathy. The author is determined to become a renowned philosopher and contribute to humanity through philosophical non-academic works. In English, or at least in role-playing games, the terms "wizard" and "sorcerer" may seem synonymous, but in fact they are very different , and that difference, I believe, should also apply to philosophy and philosophers. The Wizard is a master of their craft through their ability to study and experiment, while the power of the Sorcerer comes from their own innate skill. I myself read mostly to research my articles, to back them up with facts and to confirm the arguments I made and make. I do not have any degrees and yet I am good at philosophizing. I therefore belong to the "sorcerer faction" in philosophy, rather to the "wizard faction", which is common to regard philosophers as belonging to. Like with fictional sorcerers I can technically make a philosophy article out of any subject, without the necessity of reading several books about it. That's because like sorcerers, my talent to philosophize is innate, not acquired. It's part of who I am, and I would've been a philosopher by heart even if I did not take the very few philosophy courses I took at university and online. Some of you thought I am a doctor, that I have a degree, that I am an academic lecturer. Negative. It is all mainly natural for me. Of course, the differences between the sorcery and wizardly factions do not have to be polar opposites. In fact, people who have a natural affinity for philosophizing, like the Sorcerer has for his magic, may study it like a Wizard does, to enhance their already-existent abilities. It is not like studying philosophy academically will make the innate philosopher lose his or her innate ability. Functionally, external study is but an improvement, and improvement does not cancel what one already has. It is mainly a matter of whether or not you can philosophize "out of thin air", or in other words -- philosophize so naturally that people would think of you as an authority in your field, with or without your educational/academic achievements in philosophy as something to be studied. Philosophizing is a skill, and not only a field of study. However, what many people fail to realize, both within and outside of philosophy, is the fact that being well-versed in philosophical ideas is but one way to be a philosopher -- the way of the Wizard, the conventional way, the academic way. Those who base their philosophizing on their innate talents, like some kids naturally do , are what we can call natural philosophers, or "Sorcerers" as an allegory. This isn't to be confused with natural philosophy , which is a specific philosophical movement that focuses on natural events, and isn't about philosophers themselves. The more respected way to become a philosopher today is by the way of the Wizard: Through education and the continuous study of well-known philosophers, their theories, arguments, and so on. That is the orthodox way devised and conquered by academies, the only places on Earth where you can feel secure about being a philosopher -- through the degrees they give you, by remembering concepts of greater philosophers and putting them on assignments. The irony of this is that some of these philosophers, like Socrates and David Hume, were never academic philosophers themselves. According to some research I did, there are even freelance , degreeless philosophers. The origins of philosophy, however, are not Wizardly but stem from the Sorcerer archetype: From the innate desire to better understand the world and the universe by contemplating and asking questions. The desire to understand reality is the most innate drive for philosophizing there is. As written before, Socrates was not academic and never wrote anything himself; his philosophership came not from academic research but from inquiring about things to the people of Athens, which is what made the Athenian court accuse him of " corrupting the youth ". What if Socrates was born today and not back then? What if he lived in an age where his original philosophizing was undermined by the "dictatorship" of the academy? What if his thoughts and theories about the world would be discarded because he didn't read books, didn't write anything himself, didn't "do his research," and so on? And yet he is classically deemed as the founder of Western Philosophy. Where it took years for plenty to be accomplished in philosophy, for Socrates it came naturally by being "assigned by birth" to the "sorcerer" faction. This is why the way of the "Sorcerer" in philosophy is so underrated, because people believe that having an innate skill or affinity for philosophy is insufficient. When people ask me where I have gained the material to write so many books and articles, they fail to realize the underrated power of the mind ; that there are people who are more contemplative than others, and that's what essentially makes them the philosophers in the method Socrates used: by asking, researching from within, and coming up with your own answers. The mind is a very powerful tool which, in my case, granted me my freedom from being a physical handicap. I view my mind not as something to be proud of, for the intellect isolates me from the world, but as something imperative for my survival and for my work to you, my readership. I do not take pride in being a genius. I take pride in still being able to survive after all I went through. My mind is a work tool , not an aim. My desire to survive stems not from arrogance but from wanting to work for you! In fantasy, Sorcerers do not read books to enhance their abilities; they do not subscribe to certain schools or universities; they do not have masters of their own to teach them how to do their magic; they are simply born with the gifted potential to cast spells , like some children are born with the natural need to inquire about things; things that non-philosophic adults think of rarely, if at all. And indeed, philosophers should be seen on a spectrum ; a spectrum of natural skill and book-smarts . I myself used to read plenty of books, but since the Reaping Fatigue Era started and finished, I can no longer read books, much to my sorrow. I am, however, trying to restore my reading skills by reading articles online, that serve as research for Philosocom's material. It's why I'm nonetheless capable of sourcing my words on a very large scale -- which is going to be all of the site's material. And if I wasn't a "sorcerer" by nature, you wouldn't even get the material you've been reading here that I wrote. However, I don't let it break me because I know that metaphorically. My material comes mainly and innately and intuitively rather than empirically or with external research. That virtue, unfortunately often seen very negatively by those who are unaware that philosophizing is also an innate need. Anyone can become a philosopher as long as they develop that "muscle" within them. Hence why I wrote a guide on the matter. And that "muscle" is not the sole product of well-respected institutions that grant you certificates over something you can be even without them. Those who are "sorcerers" by nature don't necessarily have to adhere to the authority of the so-called "wizard" faction, which dominates the contemporary world. I'd like to assume that it is difficult to explain those whose skill in philosophizing is not innate, if at all, that philosophizing can come naturally. That's because the ability to understand the other side may often than not require one to search within themselves, in order to confirm what they've been told. After all that's how empathy works. However, it's quite hard to understand something someone else has, but do not have yourself. Ultimately, logic is what makes a philosophical argument cohesive and sensible. It is the electricity of electronics, the "Ki" of monks and martial artists, and so on. Likewise, there are people who are more logical and more inquisitive than others, and that's what could eventually turn them to philosophizing -- just like Socrates did. Some people are just more in-tune to logic, like empaths are more in-tune to the emotions around them. Logic is but the meaning, the " logos ", this reality is built on. And when you show a deep understanding of it through insights that come intuitively, then you might be a "sorcerer of logic". Philosophy should not be the sole property of the academic elite. It should be spread across the world and practiced even by the most common of people! Basic and even advanced philosophical questions should be tackled by anyone without the fear of being seen as pretentious, and being a philosopher can be an occupation as well as a hobby. People told me I shouldn't philosophize for I am a pretentious man. Look where I am now when I resisted their words. Let us return the original naturalness of philosophy to contemporary philosophy. Those who are unable to read books or don't get a degree like me shouldn't be excluded by the academic elite. By the same token, people who don't write philosophy, shouldn't be excluded as well. After all, it was once more Socrates who didn't even write anything. Should we discard him for not being a writer, and for being a stonemason? Would not it be a waste of potential to discard him from academic and non-academic discourse, due to these reasons alone? Philosophy is a thing we do for love, arguably, and not for the sake of being more professional than the "common man." Likewise, philosophers shouldn't fear being wrong, for mistakes are a path to the truth. Universities and other high-level institutions shouldn't monopolize such a basic field; people should philosophize in the convenience store, at cafes, and on the internet, just like I do. Furthermore, it deserves to be profitable because profitability is also one of the ways a field earns its relevancy in a capitalist-based world. It is time to stop seeing philosophy professors as more respected just because they were able to afford or had the opportunity to earn degrees. I too wanted to be a philosophy professor, but it was too late for me due to the Reaping Fatigue Era of my life. However, it will not stop me from trying to become and be seen as a philosopher just like any other philosophers, who gained their philosophership through either "sorcery" or "wizardly" means. Remember: philosophy is older than the conception of academic institutions. According to my research, the first academy was Plato's academy , and of course, Plato was far from being the first philosopher. Fun fact: there is no difference between the two in Hebrew (sorcerer and wizard). If I didn't know English, this article wouldn't have been completed . Learn at least more than one language and your understanding of reality can be improved. And yes, I've no reason to let my lack of academic expertise to stand in my way of working for humanity, and making this world a better place using my, and others', philosophical insights. Hail Philosocom. Bonus: Real-life examples of the two archetypes Wizards: Plato: Founded the Academy, one of the first institutions for higher learning in the Western world . Focused on studying and building upon the ideas of his teacher, Socrates. Aristotle: Another student of Socrates who compiled a vast amount of knowledge on various subjects and created a complex philosophical system based on logic and reason. Immanuel Kant: A highly influential German philosopher known for his critiques of reason and his exploration of ethics and metaphysics . He heavily studied the works of previous philosophers. Karl Marx: Developed a social, political, and economic theory based on historical materialism. Studied philosophy and economics extensively as a member of the disciple group known as the Young Hegealians , apprentices of Georg Wilhelm Hegel . Confucius:  A Chinese philosopher who emphasized the importance of morality, social order, and personal relationships. He founded the revered school of thought known as Confucianism, a social and moral philosophy.   Much of Chinese education throughout history was developed thanks to him. Soren Kierkegaard:  A Danish philosopher who focused on individual subjectivity and existential anxiety. Dubbed as "The Father of Existentialism" . Known for his original and often paradoxical ideas that challenged established philosophical norms. A doctor in theology. Sorcerers: Sitting Bull: A Native American spiritual leader and tribe leader. His wisdom quotes are his philosophical legacy to humanity. Lao zi: The mysterious founder of Daoist philosophy . His life is surrounded by mystery, and he has no known formal education. Much of his wisdom, then, must come from somewhere. Blaise Pascal: A mathematical autodidact and polymath , this genius was mainly homeschooled, and yet he contributed much, such as the first calculator to be practically used.

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

(Philosocom's Directory on Happiness) (Subcategory Directory on Darkness) (Background music) Article Synopsis by Mr. O. C. Isaac and Co. The article "Why Positivity is More Reasonable Than Pessimism" offers a compelling exploration of the impact of positivity and negativity on one's mental and emotional state. It uses engaging metaphors to make the concept more relatable, while presenting a clear argument that positivity is preferable to negativity. The article also touches on deep emotional concerns, such as depression and Self- sacrifice thoughts, making the case for positivity more urgent and impactful. Part I: How Positivity Pulls You Up When Negativity Threatens to Trap You In general, it is safe to assume that being positive is a more preferred state to be in than constantly being pessimistic and bitter . This is because negativity is like a force that pulls you down, into the abyss of depression and other probable illnesses. Positivity, on the other hand, is an effort you make in order to resist the negative "gravity" that is trying to pull you into the "darkness" of illnesses , depression , and even Self- sacrifice thoughts. The Science Behind Positivity Impact on Mental Health: Reduced stress and anxiety:   Positive emotions can help regulate the stress hormone cortisol. Increased mental resilience:  Optimists tend to cope better with adversity. " I worked on myself to [always] look at things in a positive light, Otherwise, I would not have survived." -- Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson Lower depression risk:  A positive outlook can buffer against depressive symptoms. Enhanced cognitive function:  Positive emotions are linked to improved problem-solving and creativity. Impact on Physical Health: Strengthened immune system:   Positive emotions can boost the immune system's response to illness. Lower risk of heart disease:   Optimism has been associated with a reduced risk of heart disease. Faster recovery from illness:   A positive mindset can aid in recovery from physical ailments. Pain management:   Positive emotions can help alleviate pain perception. Key Studies and Concepts The Broaden-and-Build Theory:   This theory suggests that positive emotions expand our awareness and therefore make better decisions. "According to this theory, experiencing any positive emotion should immediately and temporarily “broaden” attention, cognitive, and behavioral responses. This is in comparison to negative emotions which narrow our attention and behaviors to the threat in our environment so that we can behave in such a way as to avoid or reduce the threat." -- The Pennsylvania State University Optimism and resilience research:  Numerous studies have shown a correlation between optimism and better outcomes in various life domains. Mindfulness and meditation:  These practices often cultivate positivity and have been linked to improved well-being. However, this is not always the case, revealing to us the value of balance even in meditation. Positive psychology:  This field of psychology focuses on understanding the strengths and virtues that enable individuals and communities to thrive. "Positive psychology is a branch of psychology focused on the character strengths and behaviors that allow individuals to build a life of meaning and purpose -- to move beyond surviving to flourishing. Theorists and researchers in the field have sought to identify the elements of a good life. They have also proposed and tested practices for improving life satisfaction and well-being." -- PsychologyToday It's essential to balance positivity with realism.  While optimism is beneficial, it's equally important to acknowledge negative emotions and challenges. A healthy mindset often involves finding a balance between the two. Part II: Negativity As a Dead End on Life's Highway This can be looked at in the following way: imagine you are climbing a vine in the jungle and suddenly you look down at the distant ground below. This sight fills you with fear as you realize there is a reasonable probability that you will fall to your death. The most obvious solution is to not look down too much and continue climbing (or going to the next vine and so on). However, it is certain that looking too much at the ground will eventually shatter your assertion and your self-esteem and make you afraid for your life. I wouldn't say that pessimism equals death,  but for the sake of the metaphor, imagine that you are extremely high in the sky, climbing the vines of a jungle. You know that if you fall, it will not only kill you, but it will take a few minutes for you to hit the ground. It is with the strength of your enduring spirit  and with your hopes and dreams,  that you can prevent yourself from falling off the vine into the abyss below... My question is this: What is the practicality of succumbing to bitterness, when it is a force that pulls you down from the height you have managed to reach thus far? Why fall down if it hurts your interest in even getting through life (assuming you are not fully complete with the option of putting your life away? Even if it is not apparent, too much and/or regular negativity hurts the mind's health: If you're someone who analyzes your thoughts, it can be challenging to differentiate negative thinking from the regular worries that everyone has. Feeling sad about an upsetting event is normal, just as worrying about financial burdens or relationship troubles is something we all do from time to time. It’s when those feelings are repetitive and pervasive, however, that problems arise. -- Emma-Marie Smith It doesn't happen instantly, but it happens slowly. It slowly pulls you down into the darkness, where you find it hard to see, where it is cold, and where there is the potential of despair. It's the acceptance of submitting either temporarily or permanently to said "darkness," caused by losing most if not all the "height" you maintained throughout your life. It is not practical to sink into the quicksand of emotion. It will leave you deluded and unhealthy. The Value of Emotional Practicality Beyond the "edgy" appeal to the dark side of the human condition , there is really no reason to be generally pessimistic when pessimism doesn't do the job a mindset should naturally do: To maintain and improve our good physical and mental conditions. However, we should consider it to be more practical... Occasional negativity can serve a purpose and not dominate one's mindset. We should be recognizing that occasional negative thoughts are a normal part of life, and we don't have to be letting them dominate one's mindset -- Mr. O. C. Isaac This is where I bring the concept of emotional practicality. It is as simple as it may sound to you. Thoughts and emotions that don't serve your endeavors in life, whether positively or practically, are best to have their functionality questioned. Without doing so, we may be letting them become a regular habit in the stream of our thoughts. Take note that this is not a hedonistic approach ; addictions also reward you through gratification. However, unlike a healthy positive mindset, they can be destructive if left uncontrolled. The reasoning behind the practicality of positivity is not only because it makes you feel good, but also because it prevents you from doing the worst of all; From committing self-sacrifice, to committing mass murder, to abandoning all hope for remedy, hope, or salvation. Part III: Cultivating Resilience in the Face of Darkness “Today it is bad, and day by day it will get worse―until at last the worst of all arrives.” -- Arthur Schopenhauer The problem with pessimism is that it can slowly but gradually lead you to self-sacrificing thoughts if left unchecked. Like any kind of addictive substance, it is like a killer that hunts you slowly if you're not going to set a limit for it, if not defeat it entirely. Those who wish to be liberated from pessimism should thus look at themselves as if they are recovering from alcohol, drugs, and so on. I'm talking of course about the "serial" pessimists, those who are regularly negative. Of course, it's their choice to be made. As for the liberty of thought and emotion, it is okay to be sad, angry, to cry, and so on; It is far preferable than forcing oneself a façade of happiness. Happiness is there as an indication of being in a positive mental state for a long period of time. It is to be worked on if one seeks not only to live from day to day but also to feel "alive" beyond mere survival, beyond staying alive. Viktor Frankl, a holocaust survivor, took much solace in the power of the mind: “Forces beyond your control can take away everything you possess except one thing, your freedom to choose how you will respond to the situation.” Genocide survivors have their own victories over their former oppressors, in the form of good lives and families in a nation capable of protecting them from their enemies. Conclusions: Seeing Beyond the Shadows of Negativity Whether or not you agree with my thoughts, a great deal of surviving a genocide attempt is to resist the impracticality of pessimism even in the direst of times. Even if you have failed , at least be glad that you tried. In order to reach a state of regular optimism, look at yourself as a gunslinger. Whenever something unfortunate happens (or at least, something upsetting), shoot first! Try to find at least one positive thing about it or about yourself in relation to it. Don't just submit to an emotion just because you're beginning to feel it. Subvert your own expectations. Remind yourself what you might really prefer! “I happen to like to shoot first, Rekkon . As opposed to shooting second." -- Han Solo Once you become accustomed to finding positivity in almost every opportunity, no matter how small, you will then acknowledge the fact that not everything has to be all gloom and doom. That is, even if it appears so at first sight and because of the negativity bias . Remember that much of what appears in front of you is not necessarily there, but in your mental life. Bonus: How to Discipline Yourself For a Life of Positivity Practice daily gratitude for the things and beings you have. Train yourself physically, like in running, long-distance walking, or yoga. Surround yourself with positive influences, both for your health and for your mind's wellbeing.

(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 Uniqueness) (Nathan Lasher's Articles) (Background music) Part I: The Data of The Mind Qualia  has different meanings if you get its many intricacies. It can be used to describe properties of sense-based data. In this case it is referring to all nonphysical things in a picture such as color or other attributes of the visual experience. This would be like seeing a striped tiger. In this case I am referring to you being aware of the stripes without knowing exactly how many there are. Qualia in this case would account for you being able to know something exists without the basic principles of how we learn to understand things. You already understand there are stripes in a wayless way. To typically understand something , we must understand all the items basic components and how many there are. An exception to this would be the tigers stripped. We don’t need to understand quantity to determine something's quality.  To further explain what the idea of sense data is, you don’t need to see a dog to visualize a dog in your mind. What it is referring to is the fact that people’s minds help them fully visualize something without needing to look too closely at it. Your mind has already developed a picture of things Like a photographic memory vault. Part II: The Subjectivity of Experience Two individuals will have different visual experiences when they see something. Imagine a tall skyscraper. A security guard would have seen the building every day, so its appearance is already constructed in the guards' mind. Due to experiencing one it will determine the visual experience the guard would have by visiting another building. Similarly, a tourist would have an entirely different visual experience due to not being familiar with tall buildings. Example is a person from the Midwest who lives in a farming community and decides to visit New York City. The tourist's visual experience would be way different than that of a local. There is a deeper meaning to the differences in experiences among people. Neuroanatomy is similar to a fingerprint. Each nonrelated person would have different cognitive features. This means a person processes sensory data differently than other people who have the same experience. As such, a person who processes sound differently might have a different experience at a Phil Harmonic Orchestra than someone who processes it differently. Our cognitive features determine how we process sensory data. The idea of qualia represents the intrinsic non-representational properties.  This primarily refers to non-physical things and how we interpret them. Sound would be another. Go to a country that doesn’t speak your native language and take a minute to just stand and listen to all the people talking. How you hear them is what qualia refers to. If you know a different language you process those sounds differently than someone who doesn’t know it. Qualia as Personal What this means is every experience is unique to the person. Blue is a descriptive word which can be different to different people. The qualia surrounding the philosophy of mind is what I will be trying to dive into in this article. Qualia refers to the nonphysical properties of things. Anything that involves the processing of sensory data. Sensory data is a metaphysical aspect of philosophy. All real matter gives off sensory data. It is how two objects communicate with each other. The reason for people not understanding it revolves around people having different experiences and different sensitivity to this data. Now, what I hope to achieve in this article is to explain qualia from a neurodivergent perspective. I process things a bit different than most people simply because of the genetics I was born with.  Why qualia is such a huge area of conversation, is because nobody understands why sensory data can have different effects with different people. I believe I may have figured that out. There are two reasons why this is true. Different cognitive features mean processing data differently among people. The other side of things is the fact that humans have incredible abstract cognition going on. Your body is very good at memorizing sensory data. When you encounter the same sensory data again, your brain recalls your previous encounter with similar senses. Your brain is constantly evolving its ideas about stuff.  Due to this constantly evolving nature, people are really set in their beliefs. A construct they have built up in their minds over their lifetime. Every person has different experiences, so every person has different material to work with while trying to process that sensory data. Part III: The Role of the Past Historical memorization of sensory data occurs so that your brain won’t need to process it as hard when it encounters the same one in the future. This new encounter with the same sensory data allows your brain to update its knowledge on the item with a solid foundation to go off of. This is why elderly individuals hate technology, well, some of them do. They have no historical experience with it, so new things are difficult for them to process because they have nothing relatable to go off of.  So, we can deduce that your history will also determine how you process sensory data. It isn’t just sensory data but entire experiences which your brain is constantly trying to absorb and add to your memory bank . I am a genius thanks to my experiential intelligence. To add on photographic memory, I believe I understand why people have different experiences with qualia.... It is a matter of cognitive difference and historical experience. The other reason for the subjective nature of qualia is due to every person being different and having different histories to go off of.  Qualia is an inescapable aspect of life. I believe history and different cognitive structures, resulting in sensory data being processed differently, is the real reason for subjective experience. Part IV: Personal Reflections I believe it took someone with bi-polar and autism experiencing life differently to really understand the subjective reality that is qualia. I process things incredibly different than most people. Though I am still human, so my experiences aren’t that subjective.  Everyone has built their own system of preferences over their lifetimes. Your preferences will determine how you process reality and ideas. Emotions also come into play in reference to how we process things. Things which create a good emotion are often things we want to do. This subjective experience isn’t the same for everyone. As such, my love of golf is very subjective, or in other words, very specific. Qualia refers to the things I will experience while out on a golf course. Things that make me happy yet aren’t true of everyone. It is based upon my preference of wanting to be out on a course all the time.  Conclusions The point of this article is to talk about what life is like for someone who processes things in a very illogical kind of way. I know that I live in a world of qualia. I have a non-duality about myself and see the world so much more differently than most people. Those characteristics which make up an experience yet aren’t the result of anything physical. It is an aspect of metaphysics which I feel people could do a better job of understanding. Qualia is a matter of descriptive wording. Those things which make experience different to each person. You can’t define it in terms of an absolute. As it is subjective it is beyond a universal definition. Qualia can be said to be how humans interpret reality. Of course, interpretations are up to the person doing them.

(Start of Ms. Angie Hincks Article Series) (Philosocom's Directory On Dreams) (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 ) (Note: Parts have been edited for greater clarity and learning). (Background music) ************************************* Part I: The Doppelganger Talk Twin means double, twofold, or two by two, and peak means the highest point/mountain. This is the allegorical meaning of Noah taking the animals into the ark two by two. In the allegory of Noah, he took in not just one set of twins into the ark but many sets. The arc represents the arc of light in which one part of a set of twins sit within a dimmer light (nocturnal dreams) and the other within a copied or simulated light.... the diurnal (daytime) dream at the highest electrical point which is the light show... the greatest show on earth. A doppelgänger is a German term that translates to "double walker/goer" in English. It describes a phenomenon where a person encounters an exact duplicate of themselves, often characterised by a shadowy, ghostly, wave-like appearance that extends across time. However, it's not a phenomenon; it's a perfectly natural occurrence. Metaphorically speaking, these doppelgängers, like all doppelgängers, are the same entities as you, that travel in your nocturnal realm just as they and you ALSO DO in your perceived awakened realm --- most people know that to be subjectively true because this identical duplicate is the same you that you subjectively experience every night during sleep or naps —it's not a supernatural event but rather the same you, your subconscious twin (mind as opposed to you in the physical- which is brain) in a parallel world. Similar to cells, doppelgängers self-mutate, multiply, and reproduce into copies that incept into dreamscapes. That's why, when returning here into the immersive dream, we find ourselves in a copied environment full of surreal and intriguing characters that feel "real" due to the sensory machine/body, yet at times doesn't feel right or make sense- almost like living in a cartoon world. (Editor's Note: Debateable Not only was Francis Bacon a ghostwriter and doppelgänger for William Shakespeare (as it was claimed... at the very least ) but Bacon frequently identified himself as "the herald of the new age." When you recognise your existence in a more profound layer of immersive dreaming, and connect the dots, you'll realise that these unfamiliar and familiar figures are symbolic and allegorical characters—archetypes of the subconscious, all products of both my and YOUR imagination and story world. As the dream machine itself (given that the brain in darkness can only simulate -- copy), you breathe life into these characters because you are their creator. This process echoes the tale of Pygmalion, the Greek god who fell deeply in love with his exquisitely sculpted creation. With the blessing of Aphrodite (the goddess of love), his creation came to life. Your twins communicate through your subconscious, your imagination, engaging in what's known as "twin speak" or when you re-adjust the words becomes "twins peak/twins PEEK." Part II: The Blur Between Fiction and Real-Life Talk This form of communication is twofold -- a paradox (as the quantum world tends to be) because not only does it utilise a HOOK to get conscious imaginations to “buy in” to a story. It also utilises the hook to stay attached to the other counterpart -- through an obscure/hidden language with an ulterior meaning characterised by allegory and symbolism— that is essentially what double speak means. A hook from Old English “hoc” is a curve or angle (ultimately of light). Immersive dream characters and organisations like politicians or NASA that Never give A Straight Answer, operate in this manner of double speak specifically, not meant to deceive you (unless you interpret it so) . Rather, it is to prompt introspection and reading the space in between the lines of narrative in your interactive and immersive story world (called "Real-Life").... That is the role of all seemingly nefarious “characters”. All stories, are stories about YOU. and so I am going to connect for you the allegory of the American drama series “Twin Peaks” that ran in the 1990’s via the American Broadcasting Company (ABC- alphabet languages) network (or web) that influenced other such eerie stories like “The X Files”. In the quiet town of Twin Peaks, the death of a teenage prom queen weaves a mysterious connection between the subconscious mind and immersive dreamscapes. The subsequent murder investigation, led by a peculiar FBI special agent (that is you) sent to assist in resolving the case in the quest for answers, takes a surreal turn. Guided by cryptic clues revealed in his nocturnal dreamscapes, the investigator unravels a “web” of secrets and lies that envelop the town and its eccentric residents. What begins as a standard murder mystery transforms into a profound examination of the duplicitous lives hidden beneath the veneer of seemingly ordinary people.... In other words, we are talking about YOUR duplicitous life and your twins. Twin Peaks unfolds as a secret hub or crypt for dark and paranormal mysteries, inviting audiences into a realm where the boundaries between dreams and reality blur (Edtior's note: Like in the Silent Hill games) . The once quaint and “agreeable” town becomes a canvas for unveiling the cryptic depths that lie beneath its surface, exposing a world of intrigue and suspense. Herein lies the mysteries of dreamscapes. The storyline takes an entrancing turn as the immersive dream, believed to be real, becomes a key element in the unfolding drama. This is the “hook” of the story that draws the audience in. This is also why Twin Peaks became known as the most extraordinary piece of television “art”, before even being aired... The reason lies in the ENTANGLEMENT of the web, of the story, with our intuition. Our intuition makes us feel things are real and concrete even when they're not... Have you wondered why? The convergence of crime solving and the exploration of elusive landscapes within the subconscious unknowingly lures audiences into a world of intrigue and mystery... thus adding an IMMERSIVE LAYER to the unfolding dream. This quantum entanglement adds a layer of complexity, inviting the audience to question the nature of reality that propels viewers into a world where the nocturnal dreams of the investigator become integral to un-raveling the secrets of the town and its inhabitants in Twin Peaks. The enemy or the villain is found in ALL immersive and gripping suspense-filled storylines fuelled by fear to hook you into the story and ultimately to “capture” your imagination and entangle you with the characters/doppelgängers to get you to believe that the story-world is real. Such as Captain HOOK and Peter Pan characters as well as Klaus Schwab and whoever the next government villain happens to be. We tend to take ABC named “characters” found in words, lines, and their narratives literally. Part III: The Intuition Relation Talk This is what makes these stories so captivating, giving them a sense of "reality" and essentially driving the story forward. It's not the story or the character you are meant to look at, but the principle that the story or character represents or symbolises.... which is always about YOU. They (the represented layers of reality) aim to generate an electromagnetic push-pull effect because, much like you, at their essence, they also embody the essence of photons or messengers (angels/angles) of light. A beam of light, containing photon particles, enters at an angle through the pineal gland or any reflective surface, from parallel worlds. It's not too challenging to conceive, considering you visit these parallel worlds every time you watch a movie on screen, TV, computer screen, dream during sleep, nap, or engage your imagination. You, and only you, created this communication "system" and network pathway to your counterparts —a remarkably clever system indeed, as we like to be entertained or “mused” It is an off-stage on-stage system between the artist and his beloved gaze -- his audience. Your subconscious atomic twins initiate the "push" from challenging and villainous archetypes to prompt you to retract inward before getting absorbed in the drama of external distractions, characters, organisations, groups, narratives, etc. This prevents you from being influenced by fear-inducing stories that don't align with your own, and empowers you to craft a reflective response— enhancing your ability to respond effectively. Accepting stories and people literally at face value can lead to a distorted worldview and contribute to significant mood and anxiety disorders, evident in all the gaslighting and confusion fostered by religions and the immersive CULT-ure we are part of. The inclination to interpret the immersive and literary landscape literally, gives it a sense of "reality," despite the ongoing deep-seated feeling that we are still in a state of dreaming. This inclination is instilled in us from a young age, reinforcing the idea that everything is genuinely real and must be regarded with seriousness. Final Part: The Light and Symbolism Talk Masonic figures, politicians, celebrities, and others, function as directors and messengers within dream narratives —termed as stone hands in the language of printing and regarded as the gods of sleep and dreams in mythology. They are essentially beams of light (photons) that ascend into an immersive avatar body machine, mirroring the daily process you undergo when you seemingly "wake up" or arise. In essence, they are an integral part of you because they represent an extension of you. That same light in you is connected to the brain in you, to your consciousness. You are the same angle of light that rose up from parallel worlds beyond the constraints of time last night in sleep, into your avatar body this morning. They utilize gestures like waves, eye symbols, and handshakes to convey symbolic messages in a non-verbal language , purposefully avoiding literal straightforward answers. They are not meant to be interpreted as nefarious (again... unless you choose to make them so) but they are OFFERING you a wave, functioning as a universal (masonic) "handshake" to get you to communicate with your unconscious mind.... or as some prefer to call... God, or the universe itself. On-screen, they use the recurring downward pyramid symbol when resting their hands, strategically directing attention to the larger pyramid at the bottom—akin to an iceberg—signifying your dream world.... These symbols serve as guides, pointing you toward the archetypes or mythological dream characters trying to communicate with you from the invisible realms. (Editor's note: Are they doing it intentionally? Not necessarily. Their symbolism, as with everything mentioned here, is resonated with you, as the guest writer explained herself. Resonates with your own uniqueness...)

The Importance of Inclusion (This is part of a mini-series on Philosocom on becoming a philosopher. Here are the rest of the material: https://www.philosocom.com/post/on-the-path-to-philosophership-solitude https://www.philosocom.com/post/on-the-path-to-philosophership-buddies-and-temptations https://www.philosocom.com/post/on-the-path-to-philosophership-lambasting-criticizing-harshly https://www.philosocom.com/post/on-the-path-of-philosophership-recognition https://www.philosocom.com/post/philosophership-as-duty-definition-and-poem https://www.philosocom.com/post/on-the-path-to-philosphership-being-proven-wrong) I'm here to awaken Monsters, the outcasts, the psychotics, and the misfits! Lets make our voices known! -- John Duran Few who live in many cultures learn to hate. -- Mark Bloom (Background music) ********************** Criticizing the Elitist Idea of Genius I have recently encountered the echo of a familiar claim: a lament for the supposed decline of genius in our times . But is this a true reflection of reality, or perhaps a mirage birthed from our focus on the already-crowned heads, neglecting the seeds of brilliance waiting to sprout in the shadows of the world? The very concept of "genius" carries with it a sense of exclusivity, an aura that isolates individuals in a pantheon of the exceptional. This framing, however, risks obscuring a fundamental truth: The potential for profound insight and transformative contributions resides within all of us, for our potential might exceed our own understanding . Why should we elevate one voice above another, granting the label of "genius" its power to amplify one perspective while silencing others? Should as many perspectives as possible be included? I allow guest writers for a reason. It matters not that I disagree with some of them. It matters that they deserve a place in my article empire as well. The Symphony of Human Insight To embrace the full tapestry of human potential, we must move beyond the limiting confines of labels and hierarchies. A wise person recognizes the inherent value in every individual, and as such, he or she won't be too quick to discard them , nor deem them irrelevant . For they know the limitations of their own, current understanding, and as such are too open-minded to not doubt it. Each encounter, regardless of title or background, holds the possibility of enriching our understanding of the world, of offering a new lens through which to view reality. To close ourselves off to these diverse voices is to willingly handicap our own intellectual journey. Think of it as a mosaic . Each unique perspective, each lived experience, adds a vital piece to the larger picture. The janitor with a keen eye for social dynamics, the senior lecturer with a thirst for existential questions – both offer invaluable insights, enriching the mosaic far beyond the confines of their respective labels. Would you discard a homeless person's insights just because they have no proper residence or formal education? By that logic you would discard Diogenes. This is not to say that every voice deserves uncritical unexamined acceptance . Negative, it is imperative that we examine as much as possible , and attach ourselves to ideas , as little as possible, should we be wrong. Judgement skills and critical thinking are essential companions on our path to understanding. But true wisdom lies not in exclusion, but in the willingness to open our minds and hearts to the symphony of human voices, each with its own unique melody to contribute. It is therefore the personal interest of each and every one of us to learn from the perspectives of any of those whom we meet and/or stand in our path. From the wise we can learn how we should be. From the dumb we can learn what not to be. Gathering as many insights, from a diverse array of sources, is what can help us think like masterminds. So let us cast aside the narrow definitions of genius and embrace the collective brilliance that shines within each of us as a whole. Let our conversations be discussions, not arguments. Let such exchanges be collaborations that complete one another, and not competitions over the another. For in the tapestry of human understanding, every thread, no matter its source, holds the potential to generate finer and worthier viewpoints than otherwise. Appreciating The Mosaic of Insight The world of knowledge, in its purest form, should not be a golden arena for intellectual gladiators flexing their minds like biceps. It's a boundless landscape, where the value of contributions lies not in the stature, nor authority , of the contributor, but in the quality of the offering itself. This is the essence of my message, a call to transcend the pedestal of "genius" and embrace the mosaic of insight that lies within each of us. I, for one, find my passion not in the applause of who and what I am, but in the potential of my work to illuminate and empower others, and help them believe in themselves and even save them from their own despair. This is why I believe less-known philosophers deserve their place in the sunlight . Society may disregard them, but I refuse to do so. No. They are not unworthy, by the extension of their potential, they are worthy. To dismiss them to the shadows of history and the ceilings of anonymity is to risk silencing a symphony of potential wisdom. The very term "giant of philosophy," (or " Great Fathers ") when measured by mere popularity, sins in the fallacy of ad-populum. Even the most esteemed minds can be wrong for no one is safe from that inevitable possibility . True authority, if anything, lies in the rigorous evidence and logical reasoning that underpins an idea. Both of which are crucial components towards the truth. Thus, every voice matters, as long as it doesn't deter the truth with ulterior motives . This is the essence of democracy, worthy of elevation: The belief that wisdom is not the exclusive domain of the privileged few, but a tapestry woven from the threads of diverse perspectives. Insights can bloom in the most unexpected corners, from the depths of academic halls to the soul of a homeless wanderer. Never underestimate the worth of any insight given to you, for it can be most useful later. It can be useful even if it is faulty, should you learn why it's faulty, and teach yourself how to avoid the same defectiveness. While academic expertise is valuable, blind reliance on it can lead us down a path of delusion. Question everything, explore the department of knowledge you'd like, and apply what you've learned to other departments as well. This is called transferring knowledge . Embrace the symphony of voices that can enrich your understanding . A true philosopher, forever unsatisfied with the vast unknown, is a curious adventurer. Should he be happy with his current knowledge, he will deter of his or her own philosophership. As such I choose to be unhappy. Beyond the Persona It's tempting to fall into the trap of judging ideas based on their origin story. We filter through biographies, distinguish between personalities, and let our personal opinions about the thinker cloud our judgment of their work. This, however, is a sure way to miss out on a bountiful harvest of wisdom. The truth is, the potential for insight resides not in the halo around a philosopher's head, but in the very substance of their ideas. What matters is not whether they were kind, cruel, or somewhere in between, but whether their words offer a seed that can grow within you, enhancing your understanding, and propelling you toward the truth. It is therefore the content that matters more than the author who penned it. To dismiss a thinker purely because of their personality is to wear blinders. It's like refusing to taste a delicious fruit because you once collided with its tree, once, while you were walking. A true philosopher wouldn't let personal biases , like the tribal bias or the bias-by-affiliation , dictate their intellectual feast . They would delve into diverse perspectives, seeking nourishment wherever it may be found, regardless of the vessel that contains it. No. The philosopher is necessarily a seeker of insight, but not necessarily a seeker of the vessels that offers them. Hence the difference between the "Kli" and the "Tochen" , which makes them a deeper being. Furthermore, a thoughtful examination of ideas can foster vibrant exchanges between readers. By engaging with diverse voices, even those belonging to individuals we might not personally admire, we create a fertile ground for critical thinking and the potential emergence of shared truths. Let us cast aside the shackles of our preconceived notions, and be prepared to be wronged not with shame, but with pride. With the pride that now we have become wiser than before . Let us approach the banquet of philosophical thought with open minds and tolerating hearts, with as little exceptions as possible for that rule. For in the diverse buffet of ideas, regardless of their source, lies the true potential for intellectual growth, and the possibility of encountering a sliver of the truth we all seek. Collaborations for that intention in mind, as said, is imperative. And for that we must settle away our differences in the name of lifelong learning from anything and anyone. Those who too in need to attach themselves to people and ideas on an emotional level, may struggle with this more, should they be heartbroken by the other. And yet again we witness the importance of content over the personhood that exchanges them with us. This, in turn, can depersonalize ourselves from our emotions... and perhaps, rightfully so.

(Background music) (Void directory) The Burden of the Unattributed Life Life, in its raw state, offers no inherent meaning. It simply is, eternal in energy but ever changing in form. We come into this reality without being asked, and then, when we reach a certain degree of independence, we are then left to decide how to live our lives, with this decision being our responsibility. This vain reality, often obscured by the survival needs of daily existence , presents us with a profound, inescapable burden: the responsibility of attribution. Meaning, you see, is not necessarily a gift bestowed upon us by some benevolent cosmic force, nor is it a pre-packaged commodity to be consumed with a price tag. Rather, it is a deliberate act, a conscious imposition of significance upon a reality that goes on with or without us. To deny this responsibility is to condemn oneself to a life adrift, a vessel without a function, tossed by the tyrannical currents of circumstance, ultimately destined for the desolate shores of pointlessness. This pointlessness, let us be clear, is not merely the fleeting moments of a dull afternoon after work is done. It is a deeper, more insidious void – a lack of resonance, a hollowness that echoes chronically; a nagging suspicion that all endeavors, all passions, all struggles, are ultimately without greater reasoning than that which we attribute to it. It is the antithesis of a life truly lived, a state of being where the vibrant excitements of experience fade into a monochromatic blur, where the very act of existing feels like an uninspired rehearsal for a dull play. To merely exist, without the active engagement of meaning-making, is to minimize the privilege --and burden -- of consciousness. One might drift into this state of un-meaning not through malicious intent, but through a subtle, gradual abdication of willpower. The relentless demands of the daily survival, the seductive ease of passive consumption, the fear of confronting the vast, indifferent universe – these can bring us into a frustrating existence , where intentionality is replaced by stagnation, and whose frustration is merely experienced, not utilized for something greater. We, then, become spectators to our own lives, observing rather than participating, waiting for meaning to present itself, rather than forging it with our own hands. This passive acceptance of the meaningless is, perhaps, the most tragic failure of all. It's a silent surrender to the very emptiness we instinctively dread; to the void that renders us lonely even when we are in company. The Architecture of Purpose and Responsibility The path to a life filled with meaning, therefore, is not through revelation but done by construction. It is an active, ongoing process of building, brick by brick, the very framework of purpose. This architecture of meaning is not dictated by external blueprints or decrees; it is deeply personal, forged in the crucible of our unique experiences, values, and aspirations. It demands a radical shift from passive reception to active creation, from waiting for significance to imbuing it with our own deliberate choices. It is, in essence, an act of profound self-leadership, where the self is sovereign over one's life. How, then, does one engage in this vital act of attribution? It is through the application of our faculties to endeavors that resonate with our deepest selves. It is found in the craft of our work, in genuine relationships, forged by the bravery of vulnerability, and in the pursuit of knowledge, in the courageous act of creation. It is one that is done on a regular basis, if not on a daily basis, the decision to forge our own meaning in an otherwise pointless existence. Paradoxically, it is also found in the confrontation of suffering, of being able to give meaning to the suffering, as Nietzsche would suggest. Through these activities, the otherwise arbitrary events of life acquire weight, depth, and enduring significance. No one is going to do it for us, it is our responsibility to forge meaning within the life that was given to us, so the vain-ness of reality will finally be abolished. And it is uncertain if the vain-ness of reality will indeed be abolished. It is only through the daring, personal, regular attempt of overcoming it, in which we can see for ourselves, if the vain-ness will finally be gone. A life rich in attributed meaning is one that feels full, substantial, and resilient against the inevitable absurdities, adversities and hardships that life presents. It is a life lived with ambition, not merely endured for the sake of endurance. The endurance becomes but a reinforced tunnel that brings us to the next event which we find meaningful, in an otherwise hollow existence. After all, it is through the endurance of vain-ness, in which we can persevere and find ourselves in a time or place which we can truly call meaningful. And what could be called meaningful? Anything -- and anyone -- that makes us feel alive. Anything, or anyone, that can make our lives feel like they have a reason to be endured. The individual who embraces this responsibility of meaning-giving, stands firm against the tides of pointlessness, finding purpose not in some grand, preordained design, but in the deliberate, continuous act of crafting their own narrative, of assigning value where none might otherwise exist. This is the essence of a life well-lived: the ability to transcend the pointlessness of mere survival, for the creation/finding of purpose in the face of cosmos that stay whether or not we stay. The ability to create a "why" to the "how" of life is the regular responsibility of the conscious mind, willing to endure reality for a reasoning it finds worthy to endure reality for. Let us, then, embrace this responsibility, so we could transcend mere survival and reach a state of being truly alive. Let us shed the heavy cloak of apathy and the quiet despair of the unexamined life. Let us seek meaning not in the escapisms the external world offers to us, but in the steady, internal flame of a life lived with intention, with curiosity, and with a profound sense of interconnectedness to a journey we ourselves are bravely paving. For it is in this courageous act of meaning-attribution that the gnawing emptiness of pointlessness might finally stop, replaced by the quiet, lasting satisfaction of a life truly, deliberately, and meaningfully lived. Bonus: My Tragic Existence I am writing this article because I have realized that my existence is tragic. Regardless of what I do, my existence will always be left unsatisfied eventually. It is then my responsibility, to carve meaning within the suffering, within the lack of satisfaction, to create something truly meaningful and great. With my lack of satisfaction, I build Philosocom, a grand empire of philosophical articles, which I write to occupy myself and to contribute to you. I always seek to be of meaning, of relevance, in whatever I do. Despite all the meaningful things I did, from helping people to saving lives from the pit of despair, I still feel empty. Thanks to this article I now realize it is my reasoning, every day, to fight this vain-ness by doing something truly meaningful, like writing articles that can help rectify the world. But the tragedy is, that I will always feel this vain-ness, gnawing into the depths of my soul. I have embraced the void , realizing my existence will always be hollow. It is, then, my reasoning, my ambition, to not relent to the vain-ness that follows; to live life meaningfully; to contribute; to help; to be of service. I feel that it's the only way this annoying, gnawing feeling of empty-ness will yield something truly meaningful. It is the only way in which I sense this gnawing emptiness will be redeemed, if not in feeling, at least by creation. Had I not felt so empty inside of me, I would not bother to contribute, I would not bother to help, and most importantly, I would not bother to save people from the temptation to take away their own lives. I am a pit of emptiness that constantly seeks to be redeemed through contribution. That is my purpose, my game of life. All I want to do is to contribute. It is the only thing, outside love, that makes me feel truly alive, and not an undead. I am Tomasio Rubinshtein, the undead philosopher, and all I want to do is to forge meaning so I can better deal with what I perceive as a curse: This gnawing vain-ness of reality that only seems to leave once I do something which can be seen as truly meaningful, like constructing a high quality article for the world to enjoy, or to help someone in need. I am cursed, I am trapped, I am imprisoned. And as someone who knew me, told me once: Love and Philosocom will be the only things that will gratify you.