The Search Bar

(Background music) The Subcategory Directory: The Usage of Shallowness The Necessary "Evil" of The World -- Shallowness -- Why I Try to Reduce It The Fort of Shallow (Poem) The Hole Inside of Me -- How I Live In Alma Deshakra (The Vain Reality) The Rubinshteinic Method To Fight Back A World of Superficiality https://www.philosocom.com/post/against-brainrot https://www.philosocom.com/post/counter-productivity https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-last-craftsman https://www.philosocom.com/post/saint-thomas Theatrics in Contemporary Philosophy: A Critique of the Entertainment Matrix To be frank with you all, I'm not a generally happy person. Whenever I'm not sad, I'm either lost in my thoughts or exhausted by this work (and I'm working by choice). Sure, there are times of joy here and there, but in general, there is... I don't know what, exactly, as I'm too busy being lost in my thoughts. We have reached a very advanced state of materiality in this world, as humanity. Many of us are in front of screens much of the day, which offer us access to the deepest archive ever known to mankind. It might as well be the biggest archive in the known universe -- the internet. Assemble a group of cats and fast-forward 2000 or 3000 years. What are the odds that they will ever be able to reach the advanced technological state of humanity? What about any other species on this planet? It's funny that regardless of our endeavors to advance technology and our wealth, we still fail at the very basic thing of being happy for long periods of time . I mean, some of us do achieve this state of mind, but when there is so much noise, stress, and density in the places where most humans live, one can't help but wonder, is there a point to all of the marvels we have accumulated over time? I refer, of course, to our own genuine happiness. If anything, we are programmed to survive, not to be happy. I look at the kid version of myself, who had a PS2, and I look at the young adult me, who has a PS4. Does it really matter, in the quest for happiness , whatever generation of gaming console you have? It doesn't really matter, because as long as one is having fun, that's all there is to games, unless it's your job to record yourself playing or something. What I'm trying to point out is that I've grown tired of people boasting about how technologically advanced they are , how high their salaries are, whether or not their houses have swimming pools, and so on. What does it all matter, when the human heart eventually grows oblivious to one's perks in life? Look at all the objects around you. How many of them are you actually aware of on a regular basis? Each book you might not read any longer, each ornament you keep in your rooms. Eventually, the human mind just learns by itself to see these things as normal , and when it does so, these things don't really have a point beyond their initial excitement, correct? Don't take me wrong. I like playing, having internet access, and watching different VODs. I like making my own coffee and so on. But still, whenever these great perks cross my mind, over and over again, I feel no genuine joy coming from my heart. I feel no emotional gratitude, not because I'm not grateful, but because the feeling itself, which is beyond me, does not rise, no matter how hard I think of the things that I love in life. Because the concept of financial materialism is delusional. It claims that it is wealth that matters to one's mental being, while one might find many rich people who lead miserable lives , or are under constant stress. How, then, can you tell me that there is a connection between the accumulation of wealth and happiness? I thus came to a point in my life where I'm no longer impressed by people's income, whenever I see them on the news, and that includes the status symbolism of their professions. Just lately, I saw on the news someone who is described as one of the most important CEOs in the world his company's contribution to the world? Making toys. No offense to anyone working in the toy industry, but I genuinely don't see the importance of being the CEO of a toy company when even the poorest of craftsmen can make you a decent toy. Why make things so unnecessarily complex? Go to even the humblest of toy stores, and you can get a toy for your child and get it over with, as you'll also support a local business. Apparently, in this world, it is better to be luxurious and important than to be valued by the contribution you make to the world. In other words: It is more important to make money and be deemed successful, rather than giving objective value in whatever you're producing/working at. After all, many of us have the mindset of mercenaries . Some of us may value people who make more money, than people who contribute more than usual. I'm aware that I can be far "richer" than I already am, but I see no need to. If we return to the PlayStation analogy, I don't think my mood will change permanently if I even replace my PS4 with a PS5, even though I can afford it. I don't even understand why I should "upgrade" to a "better" console. This term, "upgrade", is a very delusional one. What are you upgrading that you already have on your phone or any other device that is as usable as it should be? All of these minor, yet expensive adjustments, what value do they actually have to the human mind once the mind renders them "normal"? That's the so-called "dangerous" rendering of it all. The acceptance of something advanced being as normal as your average chair or table. Those who say "there is nothing that is taken for granted" might ignore the fact that everything can, in one way or another, become granted regardless of our own whim. After all, we need to focus on other aspects in life, in order to survive. One can practice mindfulness meditation to increase awareness , and yet, it does not contradict the importance of moving on to other plans and ambitions in life, all in the name of survival. Be honest with yourselves: how much do you see your computers, phones, and tablets, more important than any other item or piece of furniture you use around your house, around any framework you work or study under? Once you've grown to take whatever thing for granted, that's it. You'll either "have" to stay with whatever you have, or put yourself in a loop of seeking new things to fuel your short-term excitement. I'm sorry for my pessimism, but financial materialism is, for the most part, a delusion you get so you can pay more for things you don't need, to replace them, with things you might already have.

"What is a spell, but words declared and crafted with perfect intention and powerful belief wrapped within?" -- John Duran (Background music) (Philosocom's Subcategory on Shallowness) Introduction There is an undeniable paradigm shift occurring in the consumption of information. The modern audience is rapidly migrating away from the rigors of extensive reading and toward the hyper-stimulating medium of video and live-streaming. This transition is not merely a change in format; it represents a fundamental shift in the purpose  of content. The consumption of philosophy is increasingly being conflated with the consumption of entertainment. This raises a critical question for the future of intellectual discourse: What happens to the pursuit of truth when the market demands that philosophy be delivered not as a rigorous doctrine, but as a theatrical performance? The Degradation of the Attention Span The global attention span is mathematically contracting. For many, deep, sustained reading has been entirely replaced by short-form videos and algorithm-driven dopamine loops. To capture this fleeting attention, modern content creators—even those in academic or philosophical spheres—are increasingly adopting the personas of entertainers. We see this in the rising popularity of "Edutainment," where philosophical concepts are buried beneath costume changes, elaborate set designs, comedic digressions, and musical numbers. The creator becomes a performer, relying on parasocial , "bro-like" intimacy and visual spectacles rather than the structural integrity of their arguments. Why must we condition the public to retain a fractured attention span? Why must a philosopher provide visual "appetizers" and theatrical nonsense to make the truth accessible? To reduce philosophy to a shallow , highly produced spectacle is to fundamentally misunderstand its purpose. The Ad Hominem Culture and "Small Minds" Eleanor Roosevelt famously stated: “Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.” Theatrics in philosophy actively encourage the audience to operate as "small minds." When a philosophical presentation relies heavily on the creator's personality, their attire, their lifestyle, or their comedic timing, the audience is conditioned to focus on the person  rather than the premise . This is a structural manifestation of the ad hominem  fallacy. In pure philosophical discourse, the ideas exchanged matter infinitely more than the individuals exchanging them. True philosophy is a ruthless , unforgiving, logical method of deconstructing reality. It does not require—and should not rely upon—an emotional connection to the creator. Theatrics are redundant, and when prioritized, they dilute the "main course" of the intellectual exchange. The Ethics of the Dopamine Economy There is a deeper, ethical dilemma at play here. When a creator utilizes high-stimulation theatrics to build an audience, they are essentially hacking the human neurochemical system. The modern entertainment matrix is built on triggering rapid dopamine releases to secure engagement. However, chronic dopamine hyper-stimulation is biologically taxing. It contributes to anxiety, impulsivity, decreased attention spans, and emotional dysregulation. Must a philosopher become a dopamine merchant to remain relevant ? Must we capitalize on the masses' addiction to constant stimulation? To deliberately engineer philosophical content to be as addictive as a smartphone application is a moral failure. The core of philosophical content creation is to convey a message as precisely and objectively as possible. The priority must always be the message itself, not the subjective, emotional thrill of its consumption. The Preservation of the Intellectual Baseline Appealing to a crowd’s emotions will always be easier—and more lucrative—than appealing to their intellect. Rationality requires discipline ; emotion is a default human reflex. I established Philosocom  to preserve the traditional, rigorous approach to content creation in the face of the internet's descent into "bread and circuses." The objective is to combat the rapid normalization of low-attention-span media by demanding that the reader actually engage their cognitive faculties. To understand complex realities, the mind must be disciplined . A philosopher does not need to bake cakes, wear costumes, or perform sketch comedy to be effective. A philosopher simply needs to state the truth. Conclusion: The Philosopher as a Communicator, Not a Clown Philosophy is not a spectacle. It is a discipline meant to be absorbed through clear, unadorned communication . When we degrade philosophy into a theatrical performance, we diminish its capacity to foster deep, independent thought. A true philosopher is a communicator, not an entertainer. Their mandate is not to amuse or appease, but to stimulate critical examination and tear down illusions. Disagreeing with a philosopher's premise is the foundation of intellectual growth; dismissing their work simply because it lacks the flashing lights of the entertainment matrix is a failure of the modern mind. We must not lower the bar of intellectual discourse simply because the masses have lost the discipline to reach it. We must hold the line, and demand that the truth be respected on its own merits.

(Philosocom's Directory on Power) (Background music) Introduction Few individuals possess the capacity to significantly alter the world' s trajectory through direct, unilateral action. Historically, immediate systemic change is reserved for those who hold positions of formal authority, such as political leaders who possess the legitimacy to issue decrees. For the philosopher, the creator, and the private citizen, the capacity to enact change relies on a different mechanism entirely: the cultivation of indirect power. Influence is the mechanism of indirect power. Unlike authoritative power, which demands compliance through hierarchy, influence operates through the conquest of minds and hearts . It inspires and persuades, subtly affecting the choices of the masses while preserving their illusion of absolute freedom . To optimize your sphere of influence to the point where your philosophy can affect a global audience , the internet remains the most elementary and accessible battlefield. However, cultivating a worldwide presence requires strict strategic discipline . Influence as a Utility, Not an Identity The pursuit of influence must always be treated as a means to an end, never as the end itself. Building a massive follower base solely for the sake of vanity is a hollow endeavor. True power lies in utilizing that accumulated presence to advance a specific, constructive agenda—whether that is exchanging practical ideas, generating economic opportunities, or spread philosophical frameworks that elevate the human condition. Focus on the objective utility of your presence, and the accumulation of influence becomes a calculated, purposeful necessity rather than an ego-driven desire. The Liability of Infamy and Emotional Conduct In the digital era, infamy and fame often yield the same numerical growth in recognition . However, their utility is vastly different. To enact actual change, you must be taken seriously. Individuals who prioritize attention over integrity often devolve into public spectacles. While they may amass millions of viewers, their capacity to be taken seriously drops to absolute zero. If your objective is to promote a serious agenda, you must ruthlessly avoid scandals, public emotional outbursts, and the temptation to engage in theatrical outrage. Furthermore, acting in a highly reactive or emotionally dysregulated manner—even when advocating for a just cause—diminishes the effectiveness of the delivery. The world respects self-control. Act with maturity and stoic detachment, and your message will bypass the audience's defensive filters and command the respect required for actual persuasion. The Discernment of Opposition: Critics vs. Malice As your sphere of influence expands, opposition is mathematically guaranteed. A tactician must distinguish between valid criticism and pure malice . The Critic:  Analyzes the work. They may sympathize with your overarching efforts but disagree with your methodology. A critic can provide objective, actionable data, regardless of their personal feelings toward you. The Malicious Actor (The Hater):  Operates purely on toxic emotional impulses. Their objective is not to debate the truth, but to spread discord and inflict damage. Only the former is worthy of your cognitive bandwidth. To be insulted by criticism is a failure of the ego; to engage with a purely malicious actor is a failure of strategy. Strategic Allocation of Attention To actualize your influence, you must acknowledge a harsh but logical truth: human beings possess different levels of relevance to your specific cause. Your time and energy are finite resources. You must recognize the differing potentials of the individuals you interact with—both allies and adversaries. Do not overestimate the value of a detractor, and do not waste high-level diplomatic energy on an entity that possesses no real leverage. The relevance of any given individual on the world stage is entirely relative to your objectives. Conclusion: The Measure of Power We may be equals in our inherent humanity, but we are not equals in our capacity to shape the world . A person's operational worth in the public sphere can be logically and practically measured by their power—because power dictates their ability to affect the environment around them. Whether direct (through authority) or indirect (through influence), power is a neutral asset. Cultivate it strategically, guard your reputation fiercely, maintain your composure, and above all, do not let the acquisition of influence corrupt the original purpose for which you sought it.

(Inspired source: https://www.animesonglyrics.com/renai-boukun/koi-de-ai-de-boukun-desu ) (Background music) ******************** Within or Away From the Empire of Love: A Philosophy of Independence and Intimacy When it comes to my philosophy on love, I use the term ‘ imperialism ’ to refer to foreign or external interference in someone's affairs. I believe that when a person intervenes in something that is beyond their control and not their business, they are necessarily being imperialistic. For example, if someone who does not have authority over you asks you to pick a different hat than what you have chosen to wear, they are showing imperialism towards you because they are exerting control over something that is technically beyond their reach. This power dynamic of intervention can also be found in love. Romantic relationships in general can be of an imperialistic nature due to the deep intimacy that they include between the couple. This intimacy is so strong that it penetrates the privacy of each partner, and has the power to blur the distinction between them as independent and distinct individuals, with their own independent needs and desires. And by "independent" I refer to any value which has nothing necessarily to do with the other partner; anything that can exist without the partner and without their intervention. This is because romantic relationships are often based not only on strong emotion, but also on a desire for possessiveness, a desire to claim ownership over your loved one, as if they are your property. The root of possessiveness stems from the fear of abandonment. There are several causes to the fear of abandonment, but since they are commonplace, ( Notably abuse and at least in the U.S ) , it is no wonder that possessiveness can be a common feature in any relationship -- and not only romantic necessarily. When you feel inclined to possess someone else, that's not only a form of imperialism but also something that stems from insecurity. When you're too insecure to let someone go, should they desire to, you might desire to claim them as your own, so you won't be alone again. The irony of this is that this drive for power over others stems not from powerfulness but from weakness. For the quest of love stems to fill voids within us: The deprivation of touch. The deprivation of happiness . The deprivation of honest human company ( which is a possible cure for loneliness ). By expending our reach into the "territory" of another's company, we have the chance to fill these voids within us, thus improving the overall quality of our lives, as we become less skin depraved, happier, and less lonely. It's similar to empires or countries expending their influence to new territories in the name of getting more resources, AKA, economic. Therefore, there isn't necesarily anything morally wrong with the imperialistic aspect found in love, as long as it does not hinder people from moving on in their lives like they want to. Be too possessive towards another being, and you will torment them out of your own powerlessness to be able to live your life without them. To prevent the negative aspect of this imperialism, one that stems from one's own weakness, it's important to maintain a healthy balance between intimacy and independence in a romantic relationship. On the one hand, it is important to be close to your partner and share your thoughts and feelings with them, in order to develop a genuine bond. On the other hand, it is also important to respect your partner's privacy and independence, and to allow them to be their own person. If you can find a way to strike this balance, you will be more likely to have a healthy and fulfilling romantic relationship, rather than one that stems from a internally-compensating tyranny. Seperating Emotion From Action In Human Relationships The problem I find with a common assumption is that it does not separate the relationship between feeling something and creating something. In other words, feeling deep love for someone does not automatically mean that those who feel this emotion would automatically desire to create a romantic relationship with the subject whom they love. The same logic can apply to any emotion and act; for example, someone that makes me happy won't necessarily be my friend, and someone whom I hate won't necessarily become my enemy. The connection between emotion and act, if seen as necessary, stems from a desire to simplify complex emotions and behaviors. In this analogy, imagine yourself in a jewelry store finding a most beautiful necklace, dominantly displayed and captivating with its glamour. You find this necklace very beautiful to look at, but you might also feel a strong desire to own it. This is where the line between mere emotion and imperialism is drawn: to exert power over something external to you. This is the deceptive nature of emotions: implanting the urge to possess just because the power of emotion as you experience it can dominant in your consciousness, but one does not have to oblige the other. The same can be applied between human beings. Certainly, someone can be very attractive to you, but does it compel you "own them" or "make them yours", as in having a romantic relationship with them? Surely, you can admire them without claiming them as your own, as "claiming them to be your own" isn't necessary for the admiration to resume. Hence why you can just simply let them be. But when you want them to become a part of you, that is the imperialism of love. Look online, and you'll find many sources on how to make people fall in love with you.   We want those whom we admire to be ours, because we might feel that we need them in our lives. But do we really need another someone in our lives, like a country might feel compelled to conquer new territory to make it hers? That, so it seems, is up to the individual to contemplate about. As for myself, I believe that it is important to be able to appreciate beauty and emotions without feeling the need to possess their subjects. When we can do this, we are free to experience the world in a significantly more profound and liberating way... In a way that does not depend on whether or not "someone is ours". Domination As An Intristic Part of Any Relationship Romantic love often involves a power dynamic between two people, each seeking a desired level of control over the other. Similar power dynamics can be found towards countless types of human relationships, making the aspect of domination, intristic, and pure egalitarianism, never possible, by the quality of our unique qualities alone. Thus, while we may be equal in rights and in opportunity, we can never be absolutely equal for we are not the same. And in a world where people are never the same in their qualities/merits, some people will have more power over others, due to their merits. As such there are people who are naturally more dominant than others , and other people, who won't settle for mediocrity. This dynamic can manifest in various ways in love, regardless of gender roles, making sexism irrelevant to this discourse. The active partner seeks to assert their influence, while the passive partner may find comfort in surrendering some degree of their autonomy. As such, some people prefer to be bossed around. In psychology, it is understood that humans often unconsciously seek in romantic relationships what they experienced as children from their parents or guardians. For example, a child who was rejected by a parent might continue to pursue love from unavailable partners, while a child who was able to assert their independence might seek a partner whom they can easily control. Romance, therefore, can be seen as an attempt to relive the sense of security and belonging that we experienced in our early childhood—a desire to return to the protective environment that once shielded us from the world's complexities. In this sense, it can serve as a form of escapism from the existential uncertainty that we face as adults. By securing ourselves the "territory" that is a loved one, we also secure ourselves the ability to be more of ourselves, in a society where masking is normalized and actors are praised for being characters they are not. Indeed, a person who chooses to embrace the complexities of life, rather than seeking comfort in familiar patterns, demonstrates true maturity. They do not escape from the present by trying to recreate their childhood experiences. Romance, while often fulfilling, is not the only path to love and connection with other human beings. And while romance is a space that allows us to be our most ourselves the most , I personally have no desire to be either a tyrant or a slave to someone else. I've no desire to either be dominated or dominate others. I just do what needs to be done to contribute to others, better. Absolute egalitarianism is impossible either way. I am already a master of myself, and as such I have little void to fulfill within me, like those I mentioned earlier in this article. I sometimes wonder if I really need romance in my life. It is through work that I exert my love and willingness to remain alive, for I am no mercenary. And as a giver I will keep on giving, whether I am to be loved, respected, or disdained by others. Voids are hard to exploit when one has so little of them. I don't even have a desire to be happy, and endured years of skin deprivation and loneliness. When adversity is normalized, it is far easier to bear. No. I only desire -- and live -- to contribute. And I will do so regardless of romantic love. For it is through contribution my sweet, sweet meaning comes from. And no love tyrant will stand in my way. No one needs to stand in my way, because no one needs to suffer unnecessarily. I've detached from my emotions . You are likely not. Summary Do you want to be loved? Prepare to suffer. Power is essential, for power is everything . Power leads to struggle. Struggle leads to suffering. And since in love we can be the most human, in love we will suffer the most emotionally under the honest, intimate dynamic of power between the deepest of bonds. Love leads to suffering because we need not deny our pains in the company of those who love us the most. In the professional world we must force ourselves to be calm . But never in honest love. For humans are beings based on the domination of each other. And in love we can allow ourselves and others to dominate us or be dominated ourselves. There is nothing more human than the honest expression of power, found in this synergy. No masks required. No pretenses. No hiding. No. Just two people displaying their emotions honestly and fearlessly, like soldiers charging into battle. Those who fear the brutality of human truth, of full honesty, are not prepared to love and be loved. For there is no dynamic between humans that isn't based on power. And there is no struggle that doesn't stem from power. And humans are the best versions of themselves, when they are true to themselves. The world is built out of an endless series of wars and conflicts... ...And so are human relationships. The more emotion invested, the greater the pain might ensue. Show love and emapthy at your own risk. In a world that encourages cowardice, love will only be more and more of a rarity. Prepare for love like you would prepare for battle, and you might mentally survive, better. For love takes courage.

(Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Dilemmas and Problems) (Background music) Introduction to the Reception Dilemma When your work enters the public sphere, it immediately becomes a canvas for an indefinite amount of subjective opinions . Regardless of your competency, you will inevitably face conflicting reviews. Negative critiques can sting, while high praise can flatter, leaving the creator with a crucial dilemma: Should one succumb to pessimism and self-doubt, or build a hardened shell to deflect all criticism entirely? For the philosopher and the truth-seeker, neither option suffices. Truth is our primary quarry. Both critics and fans—however skewed their biases may be—can hold fragments of this truth. To dismiss either extreme completely is to discard valuable data. Even well-intentioned, highly flattering praise can be a deluding trap. Intoxicating pronouncements of greatness can distort reality, leading a thinker away from objective analysis and into the trap of ego. The true philosopher does not live to be intoxicated by the emotional reception of the crowd; they live to understand the world beyond their own mind. Guiding Principles for the Feedback Labyrinth How do we navigate the complex labyrinth of public reception? The following principles serve as a philosophical compass: Acknowledge the Potential of Every Voice:  Every opinion, positive or negative , offers a unique perspective . Critics, often dismissed as mere naysayers by the emotionally sensitive, may highlight genuine blind spots or suggest unexpected angles. Even unconstructive criticism can reveal a gap in how your communication is being perceived. Filter with Discernment:  Not all feedback deserves equal weight. A thinker must learn to differentiate between informed critiques—fueled by genuine engagement with the material—and mere negativity born of bias, jealousy , or projection. Extract the Objective Truth:  Strip away your emotional attachment to the content. Search for the core of truth in every piece of feedback, however unsettling the delivery may be. Ask yourself: Is there a valid logical point hidden beneath this harsh language?  Conversely: Does this overwhelming praise mask a structural flaw I have overlooked due to my own confirmation bias? Embrace Intellectual Humility:  Recognizing the inherent limits of human knowledge fosters the open-mindedness required for continuous learning. No individual possesses omniscience . The Cognitive Traps of Reception The subjective dance between a philosopher's work and how the public perceives it is fraught with logical and emotional pitfalls. To properly process reception, one must identify the fallacies driving the audience. The Filter of Emotional Bias : The human heart heavily influences reception. A passionate reader might overlook massive logical flaws for the sake of a compelling narrative, while an angry critic might cherry-pick minor errors to support a baseline disdain. Understanding the emotional state of your audience is critical to determining the objectivity of their feedback. The Ad Hominem  Fallacy: Frequently, creators are judged not for their ideas, but for arbitrary personal traits or a lack of institutional credentials. The ad hominem  attack shifts the focus from the content to the creator, attempting to invalidate an argument based on perceived personal shortcomings. Recognizing this tactic allows the philosopher to immediately discard insults masquerading as intellectual discourse. The Ad Populum  Fallacy: A chorus of applause can tempt a creator into believing they have found the absolute truth. The ad populum  fallacy thrives on the seductive power of majority opinion. However, a thousand echoing voices do not guarantee validity. A lone dissenting voice offering a counterpoint might hold the actual key to unlocking a blind spot. The Sacrifices of Sensitivity and the Theory of Contentism Weighing both sides of the coin is a philosopher's duty, but human beings are not naturally immune to the sting of criticism. However, the pursuit of truth rarely offers empathy for hurt feelings; it is not the responsibility of the world to coddle the thinker, but the responsibility of the thinker to become resilient. In intellectual niches, surrendering to emotional sensitivity is an operational weakness . According to the Rubinshteinic theory of contentism, the content itself must remain supreme. To forge truth, a philosopher must cultivate a conscious, healthy detachment from the noise of popular opinion. Sensitivity, while a natural human trait, must be decreased in rigorous philosophical discourse, because objective truth does not care about personal feelings. Afterthought: The Courage of the Party Pooper "Clear thinking requires courage rather than intelligence. "  — Thomas Szasz A true philosopher is necessarily a disruptor—one willing to break any biasing aura that misleads humanity away from reality. The competent philosopher must be willing to challenge people's deepest beliefs , making them the absolute antithesis of a people-pleaser. More importantly, it requires immense courage to break an approving  reception of yourself in the name of the truth. It requires the bravery to defy your own ego and reject unearned praise. To think clearly , you must be brave enough to admit the limits of your own knowledge, and apply that same rigorous skepticism to the applause of the crowd.

Article Overview by Mr. C. Kingsley and Co. "The Rubinshteinic Critique of Emotional Validation " is an insightful exploration of the concept of emotional validation and its potential dangers of becoming dependent on external approval. Mr. Tomasio uses a conversational tone, humor, and digressions to keep the reader engaged, making abstract ideas more digestible. The article balances critique with acknowledging the importance of validation, recognizing that doubting ourselves at times can help us grow. The philosopher's philosophical depth is evident in his reference to logic and the comparison between emotional validation and formal validity in arguments. The central thesis advocates for self-confidence and character development rather than over-reliance on external validation, motivating readers to focus on cultivating their internal confidence rather than constantly seeking approval from others. The article's engaging tone, philosophical references, and practical advice are its strengths. Furthermore, the article provides valuable insights and encourages personal growth and self-reliance , making it a meaningful contribution to discussions on validation and self-esteem. In conclusion, "On the Need to Be Validated—A Critique" offers a thoughtful and reflective analysis of emotional validation, challenging readers to think critically about their relationship with validation and the balance between internal confidence and external approval. (Background music) Introduction There is a growing, pervasive demand in contemporary society for "emotional validation." In psychological terms, emotional validation is the act of acknowledging and accepting a person's inner experience, thoughts, feelings, and behaviors as legitimate and justified. To understand this concept, we can look at the structure of formal logic. In logic, validity is an attribute that justifies a component in an argument. For example, if it is true that "all dogs are mammals," it is a valid conclusion that "there is no non-mammal that is a dog." The converse of a valid statement holds true. Similarly, the individual seeking emotional validation wants the external world to look at their internal emotional state and declare it logically sound, justified, and immune to criticism. While the desire to feel understood is a natural human inclination, the obsessive pursuit of this validation presents a severe philosophical and psychological liability. The Vulnerability of the Seeker The individual who chronically seeks to be validated is vulnerable by default. They are seeking something they do not possess internally. What is the deficit? Confidence and self-esteem. A person who is genuinely confident in their abilities, their intellect, and their identity does not require constant external confirmation. We can compare this psychological need to the biological mechanism of hunger. If an individual feels entirely satiated after a well-prepared meal, they do not continue to eat simply for the sake of eating. Validation is built on the capacity for confidence; when the internal reservoir of confidence is full, the appetite for external approval vanishes. Therefore, the chronic need for validation is the symptom of an empty internal reservoir. The seeker is attempting to fill an internal void with external resources. The Danger of the "Middleman" This dynamic creates a deeply unhealthy dependence . Society has built entire infrastructures —such as hyper-curated " safe spaces " and the metrics of social media (likes, follows, shares)—designed to cater to this vulnerability. These systems condition individuals to outsource their self-worth. By relying on the external world to validate their existence, individuals surrender an independent capability. They trade their potential for assertiveness and sovereign character in exchange for the fleeting comfort of group approval. In extreme cases, this desperation for validation drives individuals to perform disturbing, undignified acts or host "pity-parties" purely to harvest attention. As philosophers and critical thinkers, our job is to examine existence and recognize its inherent flaws. A society that shields itself entirely from criticism in the pursuit of endless validation is a society that halts its own intellectual and moral evolution. The Efficiency of Sovereign Confidence The solution to this dependency is the deliberate, rigorous building of character. We must grow our self-esteem to the point that the function of external validation becomes obsolete. While emotional support during times of crisis is a valid human need , turning that support into a daily dependency is a tactical error. Consider the mechanics of business and economics: whenever you "cut out the middleman," you conserve vital resources such as time , energy, and capital. In the economy of the human mind, other people  are the middlemen to your self-esteem. If you do the hard work to cultivate internal confidence, the middleman becomes entirely unnecessary. You no longer have to expend your limited daily energy trying to perform for others, seeking their approval, or worrying about their judgments. Confidence is a supreme virtue because it acts as a mechanism of energy conservation. A rational being does not desire arrogant overconfidence, but rather a quiet, fortified baseline of self-assurance. When validation is generated from within, aimed at the self, and managed by the self, it grants the individual an immense surplus of cognitive and emotional energy. That energy can then be redirected away from the pursuit of approval, and toward the pursuit of true, enduring mastery. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback It is better to worry about your actions than to worry about the type of person who you are. Your actions should reveal [who you are] to people. So it’s true what they say by actions speaking louder than words. If by building character you could mean finding better actions in order to express yourself.... People are drawn towards people who have learned how to do amazing actions. Look at professional golf. Or any sport for that matter. Hitting a ball with a stick. A basic example. But what they have done is perfected the art of swinging a club really well . It takes hard work to perform at the level at which they do. Imagine yourself doing one action in particular better than anyone you know. Why limit it to one action? Always finding better ways to do things is what makes us grow as people. Always look to make things better in any way you can. There are professionals who seek validation for their work. I’m assuming Mr. Tomasio isn't talking about them. [However], What researcher doesn’t want to be validated for doing good work?

(This is the sequel to this article) (Background music) Introduction The word "Master" carries an undeniable prestige, yet its modern usage is heavily restricted. In contemporary society, declaring oneself a "master" of a craft outside of strictly defined, institutional boundaries often invites harsh reception . Those courageous enough to claim the title independently are frequently labeled as delusional, megalomaniacal , or pretentious . This societal backlash is a profound problem because it limits our ability to accurately understand and categorize human potential. Words are the tools we use to navigate existence; when we restrict our vocabulary to appease social conventions, we artificially limit our understanding of self-worth and genuine capability. The Original Definition of Competence Historically, mastery was not a mystical or heavily guarded institutional status. In Chinese, the term Shifu  (synonymous with Sensei  in Japanese) literally translates to a "skilled person," a "teacher," or a "tutor." In these contexts, the word is not harmful or pretentious when used casually. It is simply a descriptive title earned through demonstrated ability. However, in a modern world entirely dominated by certificates, degrees , and honorary titles, society has outsourced the validation of human skill to institutional gatekeepers. However, the journey from novice to master is determined by experience, situational perception , and intuitive decision-making —none of which inherently require a classroom to achieve. The Illusion of the Paper Gatekeeper While specific fields—such as medicine, heavy engineering, or aviation—absolutely require rigorous, standardized certification for the safety of the public, society has erroneously applied this standard to almost every human endeavor. This is particularly evident in the humanities: from abstract philosophy to community management, content writing, and the arts. We are indoctrinated to believe that a person’s qualified worth must be assessed and stamped by an academic authority. This creates a system where a costly piece of paper acts as an artificial "middleman" for human potential. Imagine spending years of time and vast amounts of currency solely for the permission  to prove your competence to an employer. When society automatically dismisses the uncredentialed expert while blindly trusting the certified novice, it commits a massive logical fallacy: an absolute appeal to authority. The Fallacy of the Single Path The intense dislike for the self-made master stems from the fact that society has narrowed its perspective on how worth is forged. We fail to recognize that profound capability exists beyond the confines of expensive, highly structured academic environments. Not all minds thrive in academia, and the refusal or inability to navigate that specific system does not equate to a lack of skill or intelligence. Consider a simple metaphorical premise: Does the specific road taken matter if both travelers successfully arrive at the exact same destination? Whether a road is heavily paved by universities or forged through the dense wilderness of self-teaching and independent experience, they are simply different means to the same end. Mastery in an Age of Accessibility If we wish to evaluate the true worth of individuals, we must place less blind faith in the notion of official certification and instead evaluate the output. A master is defined by the necessary skill required to see a complex task through to completion. A self-taught individual who utilizes modern accessibility to learn, gain insights, and generate high-level experience is no less a master than one who paid an institution for the title. Excellence does not care how it was acquired. Regardless of the path, the true master learns, adapts, and executes. Mr. Nathan Lasher's Notes You can master something, as in having a ton of knowledge on something, or you can master something so well that you will set the ceiling on how much mastery you have. World leading experts would be a prime example. So would the number one chess player in the world. Many have mastered this but they still stand alone by themselves. Why do people associate mastery with an ability to be good at everything? Mastery is exclusive to the topic you choose to be a master at. Sure there are exceptions. Polymaths for instance can be seen as masters in many fields. True mastery is a solitary activity. It involves becoming so focused on something that everything else falls to the back of your mind. Your whole world revolves around that activity. You run the risk of dealing with pseudo intellectuals who assume that because they might know a wider range of things that they must be smarter than you. Again added the benefit of polymathy as you can go out and learn whatever you like to prove them wrong . Mastery has a disadvantage. You realize how much you know about one topic and make it painfully aware of just how little you actually know. You spent so much time focusing on one thing that you forgot to focus on other things along the way. All about accepting those masters as they can add to the collective knowledge as a whole. They are important to life's ecosystem. How will we ever grow as a species if people don’t become masters and push understanding ahead of what it currently is? All mastery is having a greater understanding of something than that of most people in the world. Thus supplying the opportunity to help their understanding grow.

(Click here for Philosocom's Escapist-Related Directory) (More on General Skarr) Synopsis by Ms. Gabbi Grace The article "The General Skarr Allegory (Or, On Hiding From Honesty)" by Mr. Tomasio Rubinshtein explores the character General Skarr, a former villain who hides his ambitions of world dominance through mundane activities. Despite his efforts to reform, he is tempted by the possibility of ultimate power, symbolized by the Grim Reaper's scythe, leading him to abandon his facade and embrace his desires. The author draws a parallel between Skarr's story and their own life, describing a personal journey from seeking peace and anonymity to seeking global recognition. The article delves into the philosophical discussion of ambition, contrasting Western views that celebrate it as a path to success with Eastern perspectives that see it as an obstacle to humility and enlightenment. The reviewer, Alex Mos, concludes that ambition is not inherently good or bad, but its value depends on the goals pursued. *********** (Background music) "You pretend to take pride in folly and flowers, but I know that inside you lust for more power. Speak your true mind , reveal your desire. I think you'll soon learn, baby, I can light you fire!" -- Thromnambular "I thought you were bad. You ain't bad, you ain't nothing!" -- Billy The Truth WIll Set You Free "You shall know the Truth and the Truth will set you free ...means that once you know the Truth you are free from suffering. Many have heard this statement but only few have asked: What is the Truth? If there was a Truth that had the power to set you free...why would not everyone want to know the Truth?" -- Vivian Amis I have talked about this fictional character before , but it was in a different context, as him being condemned to misery by being, by his author, a " butt monkey "; one who deserved being the "butt" of jokes because of how detestable he looks (AKA, like a WWII German officer). However, in the article I wrote about him, one or two years ago since this entry, I overlooked a very important notion. He was a former villain, a paramilitary general of an organization who attempted to rule the world but failed. Possibly the only reason he joined was so he could overthrow his boss and rule the world himself. Indeed, world dominance, or ultimate power in his case, is his true desire. However, he is afraid of this fact and attempts to conceal it through gardening. After the organization disbanded, he retired from villainy. The problem with this attempt comes from a certain temptation that is within his reach. The Grim Reaper lives in his neighborhood, and his scythe is an omnipotent weapon, capable of both fighting and casting countless spells. In the very episode he is featured in on the new show he "immigrated" to, a dumb kid named Billy visits the former general, who boasts before him, that he used to be a general in a fearsome army. Nonetheless, the general confesses that now he is no longer a bad guy who seeks power. Billy, with all his stupidity, tempts Skarr by telling him that the person who will wield the Reaper's scythe will achieve ultimate power. In his attempt to escape his own sincere desires, the general kicks the kid out of his house and tries to distract himself. Despite the activities he does around his house to reject his authentic self , he receives a mysterious call from Billy, who somehow got his number. "Hello…? Hello, who is this?" I asked Skarr on the phone. "Ultimate power...." In a quick change of scenery, Skarr gives up on his "good neighbor" persona , retrieves his paramilitary uniform, and does an evil laugh, swearing symbolically to steal the scythe for himself. After all, that is the only way he would have a chance at world dominance! Conclusions This is the philosophy of General Skarr: it is difficult to escape from your true intentions, especially when they are within the reach of possibility. You can choose to become less than what you would've been, but why do so, when you can seize the Reaper's scythe and try to extract your true desires from this world? It is "easy" to deny them, but in reality, it really isn't. It really isn't, because the VISION of a more satisfying reality could forever haunt your mind if you resume concealing your desire for it from yourself. Let us not escape the true intentions we have in life! Review by Alex Mos Ambition is a character trait that motivates a person to achieve success and recognition. Historically and socially, it's a highly valued human feature in Western culture. "A man's worth is no greater than the worth of his ambitions." Marcus Aurelius wrote in his stoic teachings about the significance of personal excellence. However, Eastern philosophy takes a contrasting view, associating ambition with a materialistic ego that hinders humility, wisdom, and enlightenment. What perspective holds the key to truth? Is human ambition a virtue or a seed of depravation? The answer is not in the concept of ambition, but in the goals one pursues. An ambitious person does not necessarily seek power and domination but can envision success for themselves and a better world. Western and Eastern cultures are built on wisdom philosophers or spiritual teachers share with their students and followers, gaining relevance and sometimes fame and worship. The same applies to science and religion. Humans are ambitious, and this trait makes us an advanced social race competing for excellence, relevance, and recognition. The evil ambition of a narcissistic ego results in power-hungry tyranny, while the moral ambition of a philosopher contributes to a better world.

Author's note: This is a poem that combines environmentalism with asceticism . No offense has been intended during the making of this piece, nor afterwards. If you have enjoyed it, consider sharing it to spread the word. Perhaps with your help we can make a difference in the near or far future. Enjoy. "Does the human species have the right either morally or ethically outlive the planet that birthed our very existence? Earth evolved us, nurtured us, and inspired us. When it goes, perhaps we should go as well?" -- John Duran Subcategory Directory: Honest Thoughts On the Industrial Revolution And How to Reduce its Influence The Horror of Heat And Its Effect On the Human Mentality Thoughts On Remote Work -- How Virtuality Leads to the Decline of the Physical Environment The Contemporary Importance of Public Transportation Towards Understanding African Communalism and Western Capitalism: A Comparative Guide (By Mr. E. David, E. Peter, Mr. J. Igwe) Peer Pressure, Evolution and the Future Equality and the Future Socio-Economic Class The Rarity of Life Among Infinite Stars: A Philosophical and Scientific Inquiry (By Mr. Chris Kingsley and Mr. Joseph Bright) Analyzing Mr. K. Basileus Political Fusion Manifesto (By Mr. C. Kingsley and J. Bright) https://www.philosocom.com/post/philosophy-of-entako The Rubinshteinic Guide to Deal With Longing https://www.philosocom.com/post/industrial ********* Ants have ruled this world, No other species could've previously for-told. It is so comfortable, ruling the world, Where no other species can ever oppose our throne. By being the rulers of all, We have enslaved everything else in this aquatic ball. The plants, the other species, entire lands, Just for us to distract ourselves, From the inevitable end, Caused by ourselves. We are both the constructors and the destructors, Using all resources in the name of prosperity, While doing so, to ensure the survival of present humanity, We actually bring the end, Of future humanity, As we pass away the time in concrete, asphalt and sand. And so the precursors we have imitated, And yet we remain apathetic , Of our development's consequence, On the world's decreasing lifespan , Of a once more vivid, aesthetic. And you might laugh at me, For being a contemporary ascetic, But once the world will fall to its knee, No one will turn and blame me, For encouraging waste, for too much spending, for reproducing, While our submissive world, Its final lesson for you all it shall be introducing. The path of the monk, The path of abstinence, of the strong, Can improve our lives and the Philosophy of Environment, With little need for compensating external empowerment, Only if we are to oppose the tyranny, Of endless opportunity, And its globally-toxic Stressful orthodoxy. How ironic, yet far from the moronic.

"Capitalism: A corrupt system you literally buy into, and forever are subjugated by, from youth to death, sad." - John Duran (Philosocom's Subcategory on Shallowness) (Directory on The Environment) (Background music) Introduction The allure of "Gotta catch 'em all!" is a phrase synonymous with childhood wonder, the thrill of collecting, and the satisfaction of momentary achievement. However, when this once-innocent mantra is carried into the adult world, it morphs into a toxic doctrine of relentless financial materialism . It drives us toward an endless pursuit of acquisition, often at the direct expense of our psychological well-being and environmental stability. A life fueled by this mentality resembles a never-ending, unwinnable game. Mass industries act as the cunning architects of our dissatisfaction, constantly breeding new desires and "must-haves" to keep the population hooked on the cycle of consumption. We chase the latest technology , the trendiest aesthetics, and the most exotic experiences in a desperate attempt to fill an artificial void . The Mathematics of Dissatisfaction There is a dark, foundational truth lurking beneath the polished veneer of consumerism : industries thrive on human dissatisfaction . They understand that true, subjective contentment is the ultimate enemy to their profit margins. The economic equation they rely on is simple: Contentment  = Reduced Spending Manufactured Desires  = Increased Purchases Increased Purchases  = Maximized Corporate Profits As the neurological cycle of consumerism illustrates, the system is designed to trigger a brief dopamine spike upon purchase, followed rapidly by a crash that demands the next acquisition. The tobacco industry would collapse if smokers found lasting satisfaction in a single cigarette. Digital media empires would crumble if audiences preferred genuine, quiet intimacy over constant algorithmic stimulation. To maintain this cycle, industries weave a seductive web of advertising and influencer culture . They promise validation , belonging, and joy —all readily available for a price. In reality, they are preying on human vulnerabilities, constantly reminding the public of what they supposedly lack. The Dire Consequences of the Chase This insidious cycle thrives on the misconception that fulfilling every manufactured desire leads to happiness. But like a predator chasing a mechanical lure, each conquest simply breeds new cravings. The consequences of this relentless pursuit of "more" are devastating: Crushing Feelings of Insufficiency:  Because the finish line of "enough" is constantly moved by marketers, individuals are left feeling like perpetual failures , leading to widespread anxiety and diminished self-worth. Environmental Devastation:  The insatiable appetite for endless acquisition fuels unsustainable, hyper-industrialized production, wreaking havoc on global resources simply to manufacture items destined for landfills. Deterioration of Human Connection:  The mentality of endless desire pits individuals against one another in a superficial competition of status, severely hindering genuine relationships in a world defined by artificial merit. Escaping the Hedonic Treadmill The psychological concept of the "hedonic treadmill" proves that humans quickly return to a baseline level of happiness despite major positive or negative events or lifestyle changes. Acquiring more does not raise the baseline; it only speeds up the treadmill. The key to escaping this self-perpetuating cycle lies in the deliberate cultivation of contentment. This does not mean renouncing all desires or living in forced poverty, but rather actively devaluing the hold those desires have over your psychological baseline. Breaking free from the trap requires a strategic rewiring of one's priorities: Define Your Own "Enough":  What truly brings you internal fulfillment? Disconnect from the societal narrative and reconnect with your own values. As philosopher Eckhart Tolle noted: “The primary cause of unhappiness is never the situation, but the thoughts about it.” Challenge the Impulse:  Before acquiring something new, interrogate the desire. Is this a genuine necessity, or is it a craving installed by external pressures and clever marketing? Embrace Ascetic Minimalism:  Recognize that less can truly yield more value. Decluttering physical and mental space allows you to prioritize enduring experiences over decaying possessions. Cultivate Tactical Gratitude:  Shift your focus from the artificial voids created by industries to the concrete assets you already possess. A secure mind, a quiet space, and genuine human connections are resources no corporation can manufacture or sell. When we choose contentment on a wider scale, it becomes an act of rebellion . We disrupt the flow of toxic consumerism and reject the false promise of purchased happiness. Remember: true fulfillment is never found at the bottom of a shopping cart, but in the quiet, absolute satisfaction of living a life true to your own values.

"When I gave up all hope of accomplishment, and embraced hopelessness, it was then that I finally learned how to live." -- Mr. John Duran (Background music) Why The Need for Purpose Can Be a Liability To avoid fallacious generalizations, we must begin with a fundamental premise: humanity is divided in its relationship with meaning . Many require a defined purpose to justify their existence in their own eyes, while others do not actively ruminate on it. Those in the former category—those tethered to the pursuit of meaning—often function poorly when faced with a lack of purpose for extended periods. For such individuals, a lack of purposefulness is a direct conduit to existential despair. It is easy to quietly admire those who simply live life day-to-day without utilizing intense philosophical inquiry as a means to survive. They are admirable solely because they do not face the burden of the "each new day" problem : the daily psychological demand to justify one's own continued existence. The Shield of External Duty Not everyone delves deeply into their role in the world, whether that role is "destined" or self-assigned. Consider the function of parenthood. Those who have children often require less internal contemplation regarding their purpose because their purpose is externalized: they have lives to care for. By giving birth to children, they simultaneously give birth to a built-in meaning for their own lives. For many, this bond transcends the typical parent-child dynamic; it acts as a permanent existential shield. This reciprocal bond provides an undeniable sense of utility, making it far more difficult for individuals to question their own worth. Knowing that they are loved, needed, and relied upon acts as a powerful motivator to continue living, even during the most challenging eras of their lives. The Liability of Dependency However, for those whose purpose is tied to a specific craft, vocation, or intellectual output, this dependency becomes a profound liability. Why is such a dependency dangerous? It is a liability because it represents a critical structural weakness. If one’s entire justification for living is tethered to a specific ability—such as writing or creating—what happens when that ability is compromised by physical fatigue , illness, or circumstantial ruin? When the vehicle for a person's purpose is removed, they are left with terrifying options: to live a life of idleness accompanied by crushing guilt , or to succumb to the despair of feeling entirely useless. Thus, the very drive that provides immense joy and productivity also holds the potential to become the source of immense suffering . If you cannot access your purpose, you are forced to compromise your life, or worse, contemplate taking your own life. A life without purpose—a life of forced idleness—feels intrinsically wrong to the hyper-driven mind. Therefore, planning for the long-term fragility of our capabilities is the only logical way to reduce future regret. The Relativity of Meaning We often fail to recognize that for many, mere survival —living to the next paycheck or the next meal—is entirely sufficient. Consider the hunter-gatherer communities that still exist in isolated parts of the world. When asked about the meaning of life, a tribesman might simply answer: "Meat."  Who could have predicted that something as fundamental as sustenance could encapsulate an entire worldview? It demonstrates perfectly that perception and purpose are entirely subjective choices. For the philosopher or the creator, survival is never enough. The drive moves past basic physiological needs directly toward the apex of self-actualization . For such individuals, their output matters more than their comfort. They are driven by an absolute need to contribute meaningfully to society. It is only through relevance —by becoming an integral part of a greater context—that one transcends their default, insignificant self. The Choice of Dissatisfaction Through the mercilessness of meritocracy, true relevance can be achieved. It can be cultivated to such a degree that your importance, and the recognition of your work, outlives you entirely. To prove one's relevance is to be driven by an endless desire for self-actualization. To choose this path is to intentionally remain unsatisfied by choice. It means sacrificing the peaceful, uneventful comfort of a simple life in order to produce enduring value for the world. It is a demanding trade-off, but for the reader who benefits from the fruits of this labor, and for the creator who secures their legacy, it is a perfectly fair deal.

(Philosocom's Directory on Peace) (Background music) Introduction I moved to my current sanctuary seeking peace, only to realize I still harbored the desire for grandiose achievements: exacting revenge, securing power, and saving lives . Now that I have attained peace, I feel the exact same way. Peace, in many ways, is a liability. The "problem" with peace is that it inherently creates an uneventful life, and an uneventful life is arguably a boring one. Those who strive for greatness usually seek it in conflict, where they can prove themselves, and not in peace, where adversities are few. The fewer enemies you have, the less chance you have to prove you might, presence, and relevance . I have learned this on my own. Peace is something the masses seek—whether it is peace from military conflicts , crushing debt, toxic neighbors, or stressful events. The problem, however, is that when peace finally arrives, one must prepare themselves for a life of relative dullness. A lack of action equates to a lack of excitement, challenge, and trials. Choosing to " do nothing " is a highly impactful choice by itself; one that can easily hinder the potential found within a person. The Hermit’s Epilogue Why, then, should one seek peace at all? I used to seek peace primarily out of necessity. I used to be sensitive to sounds and external stimuli, and thus I afforded myself a life of physical solitude. However, with time, I lost that sensitivity, and instead achieved a great deal of stability after years I didn't have it as much as I do. I do not have to face the challenges and toxicity that come from regular societal work —work other than maintaining this very site. Therefore, as of 2026, my life is extremely uneventful. It consists mainly of leisure and household chores, waiting until I have an idea to write something, such as this article, and maintaining a relationship. Because of these facts, I largely view my life as being in its epilogue, even though I am only in my twenties. I served society enough, and at the poor expense of my health. I retired from it without much regret. In the absence of adversity, and with most of my immediate desires fulfilled, I see little reason to continue living other than to maintain this site and the relationship I'm in. The other anchor keeping me here is the desire to avoid the impact taking my own life would have on others. I am a large, intimidating, asocial man . The social world is entirely outside my own, as it deserves to be, for its own good. To be honest, I feel quite comfortable with this arrangement—of not having to kill my time alive just to please the masses, and getting to be productive on my own terms. Death’s Reception Room If I had more people close to me who could serve as adversaries, perhaps I would not be so fixated on becoming more relevant in this world. I am just not used to this quiet, but I now understand my potential better, for good and for bad. Based on my example, a peaceful life can be very boring—or even unwillingly endured—unless you have a goal in mind that is worthy enough to occupy your time, energy, and thoughts. As the psychological principle of human arousal demonstrates, a complete lack of stress leads directly to under-stimulation and boredom . Should you have a peaceful life without a defining purpose , you will inevitably find yourself asking existential questions: "Is my existence even needed in this world?"  or "What is the point of continuing to write?"  In a sense, writing has restored my hope to continue living, despite the greyness of my hermit lifestyle. For some, that purpose is giving their children a better future. For others, it is the search for a partner. Anything is useful as long as it keeps one away from the nihilistic conclusion that existence is futile. A peaceful life, beyond the basic pleasures that accompany it, is like a reception room in Death's office. You spend your life without challenges or conflicts, indirectly waiting for the inevitable end. Those who are not as peaceful are too occupied with life's struggles and hardships to sit in this room. Their occupation separates them from contemplating death, because they have immediate, challenging things to take care of. That nearness to death could be decades away, as it is in my case. The Calculated Risk for Greatness A peaceful life is not for everyone . Those who seek struggles and conflicts may find it incredibly difficult to live their lives without them. Furthermore, those who seek renown will have a harder time finding it in this quiet lifestyle, because greatness is forged and challenged by adversity and competition . Those who choose the path of peace may find it difficult to achieve significance beyond the isolated influence of their work. However, I will not let my disabilities stand in my way. I will keep maintaining this site, keep maintaining my far-improved health, and my relationship, while remaining in relative peace at the same time. I have a future to maintain, and I cannot allow the temptation for instability and madness get in my way. In a way, I grew up , and peace, despite being a liability, is what get things done.

The Path of Philosophership Articles 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-of-philosophership-the-importance-of-inclusion ) The Article (Background music) The Importance of Being Wrong Being proven wrong is one of the most important things a philosopher can experience, regardless of their perceived brilliance. When we readily accept being wrong, we take a crucial step away from delusion, the antithesis of truth. This willingness to be wrong is imperative. It doesn't matter how highly you regard yourself or your philosophical ideas; you must always be open to the possibility of error. Here's the catch: our egos often get tangled up in our beliefs . Take, for instance, the misconception of self-diagnosing autism. Imagine, for the sake of argument, receiving a different diagnosis later on. This could lead to anger and frustration. Why? Because our identities, to some degree, are built on our understanding of ourselves. Being proven wrong about something so seemingly fundamental can be a blow to the ego. This is precisely why philosophers must cultivate the ability to detach their egos from their ideas. True intellectual growth flourishes in the fertile ground of open-mindedness and a willingness to revise our perspectives in the face of new evidence. Beliefs are merely components within the larger-scale research that's philosophy . They are assessments, rather than facts. And a good philosopher is a seeker of truth, rather than a promoter of assessments. Assessments are discovered to be the truth, once they are tested. Testing Our Truths The pursuit of truth requires a sobering acceptance: the truth might lie far beyond our current understanding. Just consider my situation. For a decade, I identified as autistic based on a diagnosis. However, the philosopher in me compels me to acknowledge the possibility of error, if for instance the diagnosis itself happens to be wrong. That might happen from time to time. So, here's the question: Wouldn't a true seeker of truth, welcome the chance to be proven wrong, especially when a diagnosis is affordable and accessible? Just like a scientist, I can benefit from applying my own theories to my life. Refusal to test hypotheses against lived experience risks deepening potential delusions. Of course, this applies to situations where there's enough money to afford a diagnosis more than once in a lifetime. In my own online journey, some accused me of narcissism. My philosophical commitment to truth led me to consult my psychologist, who disproved the accusation . This highlights a crucial point: mere criticism, even if well-intended, might be inaccurate. Therefore, criticism shouldn't be treated as an absolute truth, an unquestionable "Torah from Sinai." The possibility of being proven wrong doesn't automatically indicate error. Healthy doubt must be applied on both sides – yours and your critic's. Rigorous questioning can be the path towards a clearer understanding of the truth. But it is quite difficult to do it, and unnecessarily so, when you and the critic/s lack the professionalism to stay calm. The Philosopher's Thick Skin A good philosopher strives for intellectual honesty , which necessitates openness to being disproven – even if it stings. This is why I readily allow comments on my website and share my email address publicly. Over the years, I've faced harsh criticism. But I recognize that, as a self-proclaimed philosopher, a certain level of sensitivity must be sacrificed in the name of intellectual growth. And also in the name of delivering high-quality content for more people. Philosophy can thrive on discourse, but only when it doesn't resort to petty conflicts, where people either unnecessarily insult or are insulted. The biggest roadblock to meaningful discourse is taking counterarguments personally, as if it has to do anything with you as a person . Here's the key to avoiding it: separate yourself from your ideas. Seperate yourself from your emotions and approach criticism with logic, not emotion. Remember, just as someone challenges your ideas, it doesn't necessarily challenge you. Learn to take criticism professionally. However, let me be clear: None of this justifies harassment, threatening or bullying. When one party loses interest in the conversation, it's time to step away and pursue truth elsewhere. Let's try to discuss with each other in a calm, peaceful manner, without being intimidated by one another. That's the only ideal way, in theory, for a peaceful discourse. And a peaceful discourse is a most fruitful one. One that is least to resort to unnecessary biases and fallacies. Respectful Discourse in Pursuit of Truth True philosophical inquiry requires a delicate balance. However, this openness has limitations: Honesty Above All:  Deception, the antithesis of truth-seeking, has no place in philosophical discourse. We shouldn't deceive ourselves or others about being wrong. We strive for rational discourse that leads to genuine understanding. When you mislead someone, for example you abuse their trust in you. In some cases it can be for you to not be proven wrong. Disagreeing Doesn't Belittle:  Disagreement doesn't make someone "not okay". If your arguments hold weight, and your opponent disagrees, that's their prerogative. See this as an opportunity for exploration as to why you might be wrong and they might be right. Understand their point of view before judging it. Otherwise you would enable a potential falsehood within your thinking. Ultimately, philosophy flourishes when we engage in respectful dialogue, embrace the possibility of error, and prioritize the pursuit of truth over personal pride.

"See what we see, feel how we feel, and you are considered sane, A communal sanity. See otherwise, you are declared insane" -- John Duran (Note: This is a special piece that will not be renovated to be kept in the present day, and will not be updated in information, in order to preserve some of the past. Past I can reflect on. I am not keen on forgetting the past. The past can help us forge a better future .   More on my philosophy on the past has been written). (Background music) (Birthday Subcategory Directory) (Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Potential and Hope) On the 7th of December, one of the few days left of this year, I'll finally be 24. The individual number itself holds little significance for me, but as the years accumulate, I can't help but yearn for a sense of fulfilment. Yearn, a feeling of having reached my full potential. It's not a desire to end my life, but rather a longing for a state of complete peace and tranquillity , a metaphorical "eternal rest" where my work will finally be complete. Is there a distinct sentiment that accompanies each phase of aging? For me, I still feel like I'm 18, the age at which I published my first book . I recall that year a slight of disdain. At that time, I was still naive about the philosophical world. The school instilled in me great expectations for my future as a philosopher. Even the headmistress herself approached me and declared, in front of my parents, that I would become the "greatest philosopher of this century." Little did she know about my contemporary competitors, some less renowned , others far more celebrated. The period between 18 and 24 was quite a distressful one, and no one had prepared me for it, despite the supposed purpose of education being to equip students for the "real world." The sheer amount of hostility I received simply because I dared to voice my thoughts, was overwhelming. School failed to warn me that people would be quick to tear me down due to their opposing views or negative perceptions of my work. I was "promised," for lack of a better term, a glorious reality as an adult, one where people would eagerly consume my books and I would achieve widespread recognition. Alas, despite writing seven books (and a series of novellas as a teenager), my works seem to have fallen on deaf ears. Perhaps this is the consequence of my self-imposed isolation , my great affinity for solitude. There I am, akin to a child on vacation, absorbed in my writing and entertainment, seemingly oblivious to the world around me, detached from everyone and everything besides my contemplations like a grey philosopher . I receive scant acknowledgment, my existence largely unnoticed by society at large, not necessarily having to work. While I've grown accustomed to my reclusive existence, no one has ever warned me of the profound loneliness that can accompany the life of a philosopher, especially in this era of fleeting attention spans. I write into the void, share into the void, and, worst of all, think into the void. I observe myself and others, comparing myself on purpose in order to understand my strange place in this world. It is very hard for me to relate to most people as they find difficulty in relating to me. Their conversations and jokes bore me the same as my thoughts and jokes confuse them, although I find both easy to understand. Every day is a battle to be recognized , to be heard within the seduction of social media's casino-like mazes. The struggle to capture attention is ruthless, to convince countless people to pause their anxious, fruitless quest for gratification, and engage with glorious article empire. They can easily abandon their pursuits, even for a few minutes per day. But their hedonism stands in my path for increasing philosophy's relevancy in their eyes. Gaining readership is a difficult task, not only due to the abundance of competing writers but also because of the overwhelming array of distractions. Social media applications and their unforgiving notifications, effortlessly alter attention away from the joy and benefit of the written word. Reading, after all, is a cognitively demanding activity that, for some, employs a considerable amount of mental effort, particularly when delving into philosophical discourse. Not to speak, of course, of the reflective thinking that one may need to be in, if they desire to optimally understand what they just read. Despite these challenges, I do not believe that reading is close to extinction, the same as I don't believe philosophy's "dead". Your continued engagement with my life's work, for instance, testifies the enduring appeal of blogs and books alike. The fact that philosophy can save lives through meaning in a shallow existence, justifies the moral debt I am paying to this field... for saving my own life. While my faith in humanity may be prone to reduction, it remains unclear whether the allure of instant gratification will ultimately extinguish the flame of intellectual curiosity, and, of course, many people's need for depth in a shallow, financially-materialistic world. Despite being only 24 years old, I sense that my time has not yet come, assuming the universe follows a deterministic path, although that notion is problematic . Despite growing increasingly tiring with time, my continued youth suggests that I have more to write, create, and contribute. While I yearn for rest , the time for it has not yet arrived. I aspire for my life to be an accomplishment, and that's why I long for old age, not as a means to end my existence, but as an indication of fulfilment. It's similar to a worker anticipating the completion of their shift, not as a desire to return home, but as a longing to make sure they finish the job. Do you notice the distinction? While my employment as an office drone may have been brief, my entire life has felt like an extended, tiring endeavor, as it does to this very day. I am a workaholic . The relentless pursuit of sharing my voice with the world, demonstrating my relevance and that of my philosophy to those who may disagree, has been exhausting. It's not just the writing, but all life's endeavors that weigh me down. I eagerly await the eternal rest that will proclaim, "You have successfully pursued your goals and contributed to the world in this life. Now, rest for all eternity." I am not driven by sadness, anger, or suffering thoughts. My aim is clear: to create a lasting legacy, worthy of succession. And what is the ultimate completion of this legacy? It is indefinite. My death will be but a phase in this empire's history. My desire to reach old age is equally strong as my desire to make the most of my time here, granting me the legitimacy, in my own eyes, to leave this world with little regret. While I could cease at any moment, it would squander the potential of my future. And I live to work. My ambition for December 7th is to permanently resume my work, contributing in the most meaningful way possible until my existence ceases. Only then will I have the justification to halt my writing -- when I will be incapable to work by death. I am doing all of this to retain my sanity in the lonely existence of being, by default, different than most of humanity. It is my moral duty to remain sane, so sane I will be. In the name of myself and of Philosocom.

( This is the sequel ) (This is the final part) (Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Despair and Surrender) (Background music) Accepting Reality I: Accepting the Pain The years 2008 and 2009 marked the end of my ability to relax naturally. It was then that a seemingly endless physical pain in my muscles began—ushered in by a literal scream of pain. That moment initiated a state of intense, non-stop chronic stress that would accompany me for over a decade. The only time I was free from it was when I slept. I tried everything to reduce it. Psychologists , physical therapy, yoga, anti-anxiety medication, meditation , and alternative medicine. All of them failed. The pain could occasionally be repressed by my unconscious mind when I was heavily distracted, but even then, it lingered in the background. No matter how many deep breaths I took or how much I exercised, all my investments and efforts went to waste, proving either entirely feeble or effective only in the short term. How did I manage to endure for so long without giving up? The answer is not a grandiose philosophical revelation. I simply accepted this reality as inevitable, because I chose to live, and let the pain make me stronger. The Philosophy of Strategic Defeat People often view "defeat" as a sign of weakness . However, sometimes defeat is simply the refusal to engage in another health-wasting conflict. I eventually accepted defeat because I was too busy being miserable over something deemed more "valuable" by society, such as surviving the education system. It is hard to imagine a reality without this pain accompanying me. It acts like a demon that follows me wherever I go—a demon I use to motivate myself and to justify my avoidance of the masses. Pain is an inevitable physical reality, but suffering  is the resistance to that pain. By dropping the resistance, the suffering decreases. Conflict is an infantile human behavior that has been normalized and integrated deeply into society. Choosing to be "defeated" by the desire for peace is not weakness; it is a tactical acceptance of a reality where the odds are against you. In solitude, we rest and heal from the physical and mental pains of society. This healing is the key to finding strength against the verdicts of a reality beyond our control—a reality shaped by the tyranny of circumstances and our actions. If you cannot improve your external reality, your optimal strategy is to look within. The Toxicity of Unrealistic Hope Hope is a vital mechanism when there is a genuine possibility of salvation or redemption . However, when you become obsessive about an impossible hope, it morphs into a nuisance—a distracting disturbance to your daily functioning. The more grandiose and unrealistic your hope is, the more miserable it will make you. Instead of compelling you to work, it paralyzes you. Hope must be strictly limited to our realistic potentials. The more we engage with mental fantasies, the more we refuse to accept reality as it is. Eventually, this friction causes us to despise the world and humanity. There is a profound, bittersweet liberation in specified hopelessness . When you become hopeless about a situation you know you cannot change, it becomes easier to accept its presence and authority. Hopelessness does not always mean pure despair; sometimes, it simply means there is no longer a logical reason to expect a change. You stop fighting the current. You just float. The Ascetic ’s Peace What has my pain brought me? Anxiety, physical exhaustion , and an ascetic mentality. I am a healthy person, but I am healthy in solitude . I find society sickening, both literally and metaphorically. The toxic behaviors that people normalize have caused me trauma, creating a strong desire to lay low. The world is stressful, and to recover while still writing philosophy to help others , I live in deliberate social isolation. Do I like this world? Not at all. But if I did not accept the moral depravity of this world as an unchangeable fact, I would be far more depressed . Giving up on trying to be part of this world directly reduced my stress. I have found peace by giving up the need to partake in the greater reality. Peace is found first in acceptance. Another person might feel deeply uncomfortable or victimized by having carried this physical and societal pain for so long. But for me? It was Tuesday. And as such, when people complain about discomfort or lack of pleasantness, I can't help but pity them. They couldn't handle what I handled. And as such, I accept not only the inevitability of pain, but also the distance my strength created between me and the rest of society. Eventually, the pain receded, but it remains a stark memory; a shadow haunting me and helping me remember that trying to fit me into society was a mistake. There is far more peace and recovery in solitude.

(Philosocom's Subcategory on Time) (Philosocom's Subcategory On the Past) (Background music) Remembering Like a Crow: Why The Time Lapse Fallacy Does Not Erase One can compare us humans to birds . Some, like penguins, are earthbound, their wings aren't exactly instruments of flight. Others, like swallows and albatrosses, paint the skies with their travels, effortlessly traversing continents. Vultures, the opportunists , scan the landscape for the leavings of greater predators. And then, there are those like myself, the crows – not in physical form, of course, but in our minds. We remember, and remember well . The slightest of stings, the warmest of gestures... the details that others let fade, as they overlook them. Now, I am no bird expert, and this analogy is just that – a metaphorical display of personhood. It serves a purpose. Just like birds, we humans come in a great variety of shapes, sizes, and talents. Some ride on the wings of ambition, while others content themselves with paddling through life's lakes below the skies. Some forget as readily as a sparrow hops from branch to branch, while others, like myself, hold memories close, a precious collection in the attic of the mind. We do so for it is most useful to us. So, when someone tells me to simply "forget" something or someone, to let time erase the scars, I'm too reluctant. Why, in the pursuit of wisdom, would I consider the passage of time a worthy feature? Forgetting, like a closed book, can be convenient, but it also shuts out the lessons learned, the wisdom that can be gained, learnt, and shared to the world. It is a tool for those who are unwilling to face the adversity of the past. It's one too willing in its removal of memory's treasures. Why the Past Contains Wisdom, Even in The Most Distant of Decades Socrates, it could be argued, drank poison not as a society-defying martyr, but as a testament to his own philosophy. He chose death over hypocrisy, demonstrating the weight he placed on intellectual integrity . While millennia have passed since his death, the wisdom which resonated from his life and choice remains potent. This enduring power of the past is what I call the Lapse Fallacy: the flawed assumption that merely because time has elapsed, something's relevance necessarily diminishes. A month, a year, even centuries – the true measure of worth lies not in age, but in the lessons we can extract from each and every moment, in the name of the truth and its clarity. Faith holds ancient scriptures as relics, guiding lights across generations. As a writer, I find myself drawn to the 19th-century Yiddish author Shalom Rabinovich , better known as Shalom Aleichem. Though criticized as verbose, his style resonates deeply with me, offering a timeless efficiency in communication who contributed to my own writing. "The people who forget their past, their future is doomed in fog." Even a thousand years won't erase the chilling truth: millions perished in WWII. My own great-grandfather's family was lost, and I carry their memory with profound gratitude. For without his enduring hope, a chain of lives, including mine, would never have come to be. An entire clan to be precise. Human existence is woven with threads from countless generations, each life a feature constructing the vast chronology of history. The chance of YOU, specifically, coming into being required an indefinite amount of interactions between ancestors. Not just parents and grandparents, but a vast network of choices and experiences stretching back across the ages. Discarding any of these choices and experiences can, on the very, very long run, discard the importance of many future events unfolding from potential to reality! While the temptation of " letting bygones be bygones " is understandable, it is in the embrace of the past, its lessons and legacies, that we find the truest understanding of ourselves, others, and the world we inhabit. Socrates, though countless centuries dead, remains a hallmark of philosophical inquiry, reminding us of the power of living a life aligned with our values, even in the face of adversity. Forgetting even the smallest of events that can lead to a greater events in importance, can easily be a logical disservice to said greater events. But we won't necessarily understand that if we lack expertise in logic, and/or if we lack long-term planning. For nothing lies in a vacuum. For everything is part of an endless stream of time, building an ever-growing complex of chains of events. Why Memories, Like Crows, Defy the Lapse Likewise, when a certain individual dared to dismiss me as irrelevant, the passage of years holds no relevancy for the sting of those words. Like the crow, I hold fast to memory, its grip unyielding to the passage of time. For if I agreed with her, I would have been likelier to kill myself in despair, succumbing to the Reaping Fatigue at the time . My unrelenting hold is driven by something deeper than mere sentiment. Within the crow, I believe, beats a powerful urge that transcends the temporary. A low but spine-chilling voice: "Remember this one, for their path may cross yours again." It is not the speaker's identity that truly matters, but the echoes of their actions/words, resonating in the chambers of my mind. I do not operate under ad-hominem. I operate under logic and words. A cornerstone of philosophy, and thus its relevancy, lies within its defiance of time's tyranny. Unlike other disciplines, bound by the currents of progress and discovery, philosophy's wisdom transcends centuries. The most ancient texts, the voices of long-gone people, retain their potency, for it is the content , not the and not their creator, that dictates their insightful worth. Grasp this truth, and you take a giant leap towards the heart of philosophical inquiry. Start by understanding how irrelevant time is in philosophy.

( This is part of a series that I decided to build for you. Browse the first part as a summary to what I'm going to write here). (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). Summary by Anonymous Mr. Tomasio discusses the complex relationship between mind and body, arguing against the traditional dualistic view as reality's far more complex than this. They propose that physical and mental experiences are interconnected, and that trauma can manifest as both psychological and physical symptoms. The philosopher shares his personal experience of using chronic pain as a motivator for productivity and self-improvement. He argues that while pain is a negative experience , it can be harnessed to overcome challenges and achieve goals. The writer emphasizes the importance of accepting and addressing trauma rather than repressing it. He believes that by confronting difficult emotions and experiences, individuals can find strength and resilience. The article concludes with a passionate call to action, urging readers to embrace their passions and strive for success , even in the face of adversity. The author suggests that pain can serve as a catalyst for growth and achievement. (Background music) Critique of Body and Mind Dualism I finally realized the source of my pain, a chronic, physical pain that has lasted for 10-20 years. I finally understand that it comes from trauma . From the connection between mind and body. From the fact that we can experience psycho-somatic sensations and emotions. As such, the philosophy of dualism is not entirely correct. For we are, in a sense, body and mind. Even if we may have automatic systems within us, even if we have an automatic portion of the self, we still exist as one, somehow. As a singular entity, made up of components that cooperate with each other in unison. And should a component be damaged, it can harm the other components, forming the entity that is the human being. Should one of the wheels of your car be lacking air, it can harm the overall performance of your vehicle. Thus, should you solve the problem in that specific wheel, the car can be driven better towards its destination. Subverting One's Traumas Yes, my mind is heavily traumatized. And I've been experiencing the implications of these traumas for most of my life, ever since childhood. I've always been serious, and treated every task very seriously. Never really undermining anything. The traumas, ultimately, made me the professional that I am. The one with the soldier's mentality, who cares to carry out all his tasks, whether giving or given. Somehow, I managed to not only drive this metaphorical vehicle without fixing it for good, but also use its faults for my own advantage. By utilizing the flaws inflicted by trauma, in order to improve myself in my roles throughout life. Because anxiety and stress, while harmful, do have their own merits. And pain can be a great teacher as well. By denying myself the practicality of curing this pain, the ascetic life had become far, far easier. Why? Because I suffer anyways. What's a little more suffering going to do? And when you are stressed, you may find yourself having an easier time focusing. In addition, when having concern, you can get things done more seriously. When you are anxious, should you be able to restrain yourself, you can use it to live more safely, thus contributing to your own survival. After all, these sensations and emotions are natural. They are there to keep us safe. Their point is for you to avoid experiencing the same traumas again. It is but the way of the mind to adjust to the future, based on past experiences. That is, of course, assuming that your mind is still functioning properly, after whatever you have witnessed throughout life. In other words, face a "sufficient" amount of trauma, and you may unconsciously use it to become stronger mentally. Therefore, you can find virtue even in such an adversity. Addressing Potential Critique It may sound bizarre to turn the same liability into an asset. However, when you get used to discomfort, life becomes more bearable than otherwise. Metaphorically, if you are riding a damaged car on a very long and desolate road, you have no choice but to tolerate the liability until you reach your destination, somewhere in the horizon. The liability of pain thus becomes an asset when you use it for self-improvement. Enduring around 10 to 20 years of chronic pain in your every waking moment is no easy task. However, the more you endure, the stronger you can become. My neck has been in pain since the near-end of the 2000s. It has been stiff as wood by default, ever since. That is done by understanding that some things deserve to be granted. They deserve to, because there might be other things at play that are more deserving of your attention. Put the pain and the suffering in the background. Your mind might already do it for you. Should you develop a strong-enough tolerance for it, you may be able to tolerate whatever requires your attention, as well. Pain as Motivator The pain is tiring, don't get me wrong. And I don't like it. I still keep it unchecked. The reason is simple: I maintain my pain tolerance in the name of my work. I work so much because I am used to the agony. Since I view this work as my life's purpose, I have little problem essentially locking myself in my hermitage and working. There are days where I don't even sleep, although of course this is not entirely wise on my end. This pain slowly but surely silences the inner screams inside me, allowing me to focus on relentless writing. Why do I let it cancel my inner experience, hoping for salvation? Simple, but not quick to be understood: I use pain to fuel me, and give me energy. Using Philosophy Like a Swordsman Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory! AND THROUGH VICTORY, MY CHAINS ARE BROKEN, AND RELEVANCE SHALL FREE ME. Free me from being under the ceilings of irrelevancy! Of obscurity! It is only through a life of militant work on my goals that I will actually be someone in this careless, apathetic world! Yes! My initiative will be proven useful the more I work on it! And for that, I need to feel pain, so I will have the energy, the passion to succeed, and be purposefully frustrated by my current situation! By the fact that I was called irrelevant so swiftly and carelessly! You will all benefit from my success! Benefit from new and newer articles! Benefit from other writers! Empires are built on ambition! And ambition is always the lack of peace from the current situation one is in! Be aware of the sources of your pain, and the truth can set you free.

(September 2023 note: I am no longer handicapped. I explained why in this article ). (Philosocom's Subcategory On Fatigue and Exhaustion) (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). Generally speaking, I am not a jealous individual, even though I am well aware there are people who are more "privileged" than me simply because they don't have certain disabilities that stand in their way; disabilities that I have. I don't like to whine either, but that doesn't prevent me from feeling the need to share my story with those who can benefit from it, whether or not they have the things I have. Having autism is not that difficult when you don't interact with a lot of people or with people who are aggressive by nature; having an anxiety disorder is fine as long as the triggers are not present, and the environment is overall safe to live in. However, if there is something that penetrates my solitude, it is my exhaustion syndrome. I don't know for sure what caused it, but what I do know, is that it paralyzed me from doing a lot of things I could've otherwise done in my relative solitude -- mainly read extensively, exercise regularly, and so on. These are things I want to do, but this syndrome makes these activities extremely difficult to do, regardless of how much willpower I have. For comparison, it's like a magnet that rejects you instead of attracting you. You want to stick to the magnet, but it only pushes you away like the stream of a waterfall while you're trying to climb it. Ironically, this syndrome prevents me from sleeping, as its intensity is too distracting for me to be able to fall asleep. Therefore, I must be careful when allocating the limited mental energies I have. If it means skipping over things I would've otherwise done, then so be it, as there are more days to be lived where I can perform these actions. Even without that syndrome, Rome wasn't built in a day, as they say. I am not your typical philosopher who constantly talks about other philosophers in the history of our species. I took a few courses on philosophy both at university and online, but overall, I find it significantly easier, energy-wise, to be a contemplator than a scholar of philosophership. Contemplating comes easier as there is no mental overload, and should I ever return to the academic life, I might, by accident, make my syndrome more severe than it already is. Being your own philosopher in general feels freer than associating oneself with one school of thought or another. Because of that, I don't see the energy-wise reason to invest in other philosophers (even though I partially did) when I can contribute to the world with my own philosophy. If we are talking about being occupied, remember that with this syndrome I can't technically work in most jobs, menial as intellectual. I'd need many breaks and I might not be up to schedule, not because I'm lazy, but because the intense feeling of exhaustion is too powerful to persist against it. As it is said in the Taoist teachings -- Wu-Wei -- have an effortless effort. That is my ideal endeavour as a generally exhausted man -- to be able to perform as many activities as possible with wasting as little energies as possible. Regardless, we must be realistic if we wish to be reasonable -- accept what is within our control and beyond it, like Epictetus said. There is little I can do against this general exhaustion other than have a lot of periods of rejuvenation. You can claim that I could've earned a living as a writer in some big company, but I cannot force myself to write when I am too exhausted. In the past I tried working as a freelance writer for a few months; was too exhausted to finish the job I was given. If there is something I am afraid of doing outside my apartment, is to show my disability ID in a supermarket, should I be too exhausted to stand in line. People cannot understand at first sight, and I can't blame them for being ignorant about the unseen disabilities. Fortunately, I have someone to do the purchasing for me. In short, I am well aware that I could've been something greater, philosopher-wise. I could've had a few diplomas, maybe even a PhD, be able to endure long discussions with other philosophers and get known enough like Jordan Peterson or Slavoj Zizek. However, I need to allocate my energies wisely in order to live both productively and happily. It's not always easy but I'm coping. I am still content with the fact that I managed to nonetheless be greatly industrious despite me being in my 20s. As written elsewhere, beyond writing articles such as this, I have little reason to live, even though I am not suffering or anything. I don't like some of the philosophical communities today, at least from what I got to experience myself. They are not tolerant enough towards the disabled. They can be hostile, insensitive and so on, if you don't appeal to them enough. It doesn't feel safe being a philosopher when you have your comments section turned on, on public websites, because the truth is that many people do not care for your sensitivities, your disabilities and so on. The online culture had appeared to dehumanize, at times, the human discussion. This too exhausts me and this is why I don't prefer philosophical discussions; that is unless it's with someone I trust that is tolerating enough and won't see my exhaustion as an "excuse" to fall back. Thus, as a writer with exhaustion, you must do the following if you wish to live in peace -- reject those who are angry at you for not writing whatever they want you to write, and not underappreciate the portion of the audience who is grateful for your work for them. Even writing this is a bit exhausting, but at least the level of satisfaction is greater. Philosophizing should be done with love for the craft, not hatred for those who think differently than you. It appears that even in this decade, some people are still angry about being exposed to content they dislike, as if the media should be dictated according to their version of how things should be. Whether you're an exhausted person or not, remember this -- your mental resources are not infinite; even if recharged, they can dwindle with time, whether it's when you're old or whether it will strike you without a moment's notice, as it did to me. As I thought to myself as well -- I wish Philosoocom to be a harmonious, peaceful place, with no unnecessarily draining toxicity. Grab yourself a cup of coffee, and enjoy my content as much as you'd like, for I intend to keep this site going long after my death. What I mostly want people to understand from this article, is that even when someone is disabled, there can, in theory, be a solution or outlet, even if it is not ideal like it could've been if things were different. I will continue writing with determination.

The Subcategory: Analysing My Fatigue: The Need for a Positive Dream The Drained One -- a Poem Exhaustion Days Life as an Exhausted Man Stress and Exhaustion As a Philosopher -- How I Refuse to Relent The Horror of Rumination -- A Critique of Philosophizing Shadow of Veronica -- An A.I. Story of Eccentricity and Fatigue Away From The Hermitic Philosopher -- A Very Mysterious Storytime Through A Former Friend's Perspective On Being Severely Misunderstood Over the Years -- The Tempt of Misanthropy (And How To Reduce It) The Existential Isolator (Poem) Accepting Reality III: How I Liberated Myself From 15 Years of Pain A Return to the Darker Past https://www.philosocom.com/post/architecture Introduction The Reaping Fatigue Era was a personal era in my life from 2018 to August 2023 where I became fatigued to the point of being a physical handicap. It also negatively affected my cognition, even though I still managed to write a lot... I solved the Reaping Fatigue Era by using two methods: Accepting reality , and developing a neuroplastic method. This poem was written in an extreme state of mind where I thought my lifelong legacy is at risk due to not having a solution on the horizons. As said, I brought up solutions of my own, as no one cared enough to help me with it practically. The doctors were too uncaring to assist me quickly, so the condition deteriorated. With a "new me" that I developed, I returned to thinking far better, along with researching existing and new articles on Philosocom. And indeed, the quality of my articles have improved ever since.... And I did it for my readership). ******** The Poem Imagine having so many ideas to write about, Imagine so many possibilities that wait for you, To reap them and enjoy their abundance, from north to south. Now imagine the vast majority of them taken away, probably for good, By a neurological disorder that does not care for thee. That is, you see, the incurable fate of me. Imagine wanting to write about something, and though you have the time, You lack the energy to even think deeply , so you resort to rhyme. It does not care whether you're a paragon of justice or full of crime, It can make you live on welfare's dime, Making you a slave to taxpayer's work time. Days pass by, and even though you want to write, The lack of energy turns you into a wingless kite; That which is made to fly across the skies, And yet, you lack the energy to do so, only left on the Earth, to strive. It is not mercy nor pity which I seek, For I only wish to be remembered like the old philosophers of Greek. Death is something I only want as a symbol of accomplishment, So I will wait for it patiently, as for many other things, I can't. I refuse entertaining mockery due to many a disability, I care less if it happens, for it is a realistic inevitability. As long as I can still write , the idea of death I don't want to entertain, Maybe another time I will have enough energy to properly write again. There is a great competition in this niche , of that I am aware, But as long as I am too weak to write articles, it's difficult to even care, For life with this reaping fatigue is sort of a nightmare, But perhaps another time I will write a new piece, in my lair. The Reaping Fatigue is a reaper which makes it too little to deliver; The idea of a greater life, and thus a bigger ego, makes it near impossible, to rationally consider. For some reason I was punished by a chronic disorder that streams like a river, A flow that drains energy that could've been used for something bigger. But you have my word, as a philosopher and as a mister: As long as I can still write, I will consider a new article to be written and thus published nearer. Should I permanently, of writing, be too weak and even weaker. Then... I will rest in hope my fatigue will not become my own grim reaper. Escaping this mortal world is not something of which I am a believer, So, in that case, I will just re-share until death will linger. Even though there are many days which of new writing I wish to be your server, I just need to face the truth and resume my duty as a re-sharer.

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

Self-Isolation and Why I Isolate Myself by Choice (Philosocom's Directory of Choice and Decision) (Background music) Those who are as sensitive as I have no place in this loud, impulsive world. The internet became a salvation to my kind of people, because here the user can permanently block people away from one's virtual presence. I wager that, if it weren't for computers , I would be less hesitant to end it all, simply because one cannot filter their physical environment as much as the virtual one. Filter the hatred, the uncomfortable noise, the harassments and the presence of toxic people. In the physical world, that is only possible when you either move to another place to live in, change your job, or both. The virtual presence thus gives us an underrated freedom -- the freedom to filter and to isolate. It isn't an act of cowardice, necessarily, to physically quarantine oneself from this world. It could also come from the intention, to stop the seemingly infinite loops of conflicts with other people. Conflict with friends, conflicts with family and neighbours. The thing that never ceases to amuse me is the fact that many choose to give in to internet trolls by feeding them with their anger, when they have the choice to block them and save their energy over something worthier of their time. It should not be seen as fearfulness, to want serenity from this stressful world, when such an option is indeed possible. During the COVID19 lockdown, it was forced upon by many people to isolate themselves from the world. It was a difficult verdict to many, not only because of the financial damage that such a policy caused, but also because many people are not as used to being alone so much in their homes, even though they can communicate with others virtually. For me, however, it didn't change much, because most of my life I have quarantined myself from this world, preferring instead to contribute in my own way, while finding much freedom in solitude. Sometimes, it was involuntary, because I wanted to be loved by someone other than family and pets. But, as I grew up, I've realized that quarantine is the only realistically positive choice for me to follow, and that is all because I have sensitivities that I never chose nor ever wanted. I don't wish for life to be different. In solitude I am free to do as I please. I isolate myself by choice because I am not compatible with most people, and find much freedom in solitude, not having to cater to anyone, while living in my own world. I've accepted the fact that my wellbeing is more important catering to a corrupt society, even if it means cutting ties with people, I hold dear who aren't good for me. I enjoy the silence of solitude ; the fact that I can be with headphones all day and choose whatever music I like, without disturbing anyone in the process. I can't work, even though I tried and went to interviews; it's too stressful and exhausting. This freedom in physical solitude, allows me to live life stress-free, and I have an idea why. Society is a stressful place to be in, and I'm glad I don't have to partake in society. Physical exercise is too what I am free to spend my time on in solitude when it is not too hot. Had I been born as a normal person, I would've struggled more than I struggle now. In my disability, I am free to live my life under my own terms, with no one bothering me whatsoever. Given I don't like society, and I am a rebel, it is not too difficult for me to quarantine myself from this world. It is still important to have people to speak with, even if only to cleanse the void from within. A life of complete solitude can be very empty, and I still have a need to contribute to the world. I do not want to exist publicly in this world beyond my online contributions of Philosocom. I believe the world will continue to change and evolve, regardless of my own existence. However, I also believe that my continued presence can contribute to that change in a positive way. The possibility of making a difference, of contributing to something meaningful, is a powerful motivator for me to choose life over death, and solitude over society. This vision, this hope for a better future, is worth more than departing from this planet for good. The world appears to be a beautiful place. However, if it means that I'll get this elusive feeling of peace, then it is preferred that my quarantine will resume until the time comes to go. Nothing appears to be preferable to resting in peace while in life, and not only in death. I thus have no regrets forsaking humanity, while contributing to it from the comforts of my own solitude.

The Directory On My Retirement from Society -- Reflections of a Shadow Sovereign Who Retired at 20 The Sovereign Mind: A Manual for Free Thinking in a Programmed World The Sovereign's Equation: The Mathematics of Freedom The Neurodivergent Sovereign: A Philosophy of Successful Incompatibility The Rubinshteinic Path To Become A Self-Sovereign The Architecture of the Watchtower: Mastering Cognitive Distance https://www.philosocom.com/post/rebellion https://www.philosocom.com/post/ordinary-people The Sovereign’s Sanctuary: Insights from Living Alone https://www.philosocom.com/post/strength The Poem, "Hymn of the Ascetic King" (Background music) As a child I never fitted in, With the rest of the human kids. I was solitary, locking myself within, A small realm whose solitude it brings. My parents were heavily concerned, How would I survive as an adult? But an empire I built and respect earned, Living by my own power to a fault. Ahh... I pity those who must fit in, To survive! Keep their true selves hidden as a mean, To navigate and thrive in the hive. Not needing much, The ruler of a bunch. I am satisfied through a modest lunch! But the price I pay, To rule another day, Is to endure loneliness , to my dismay. I keep only a few followers around my throne, With this site as a common purpose. Other than that, I keep being on my own, The price of owning my own canvas. Having friends require compromise, That would've defied my own rise, To power on my own sovereignty, Away from the rest of society. Ahh.... my rise to power, Costed me friends, down the ivory tower. But if I want to keep ruling another day, I must keep secure and away. Not needing much, The ruler of a bunch. I am satisfied through a modest lunch! But the price I pay, To rule another day, Is to endure loneliness, to my dismay. Ahh, the world is getting lonelier, With isolating, technology! Social connection lost to times far jollier, Careers and/or matrimony. People going their own way, To survive another day. And only few get to have a say... While I answer to no one, Not having to raise any son. Many would blindly kill for my position to have won.

(Directory on Sovereignty) (Background music) Introduction There is a prevalent myth in human society that strength attracts. We are told that if we become capable, resilient, and powerful, the world will flock to our side. We are sold the idea that the strong man is the center of the community, the beloved leader, the social magnet. The reality, as any truly strong individual eventually discovers, is the exact opposite. Strength does not create connection; Strength creates distance. The more you cultivate your will, the more you refine your discipline , and the longer you endure the fires of adversity, the further you drift from the shoreline of the "average." It is not an act of arrogance , nor is it a choice of rejection. It is a fundamental law of social physics: The discrepancy in capacity creates a discrepancy in relatability. The Atmospheric Pressure of the Soul Imagine two divers. One swims comfortably in the shallow, sunlit waters of the surface (The Average Existence). The other dives into the crushing black depths of the trench (The Sovereign Existence). The deeper diver develops a physiology capable of withstanding immense pressure—the pressure of existential dread, of financial risk, of long-term vision, of solitude. When the deep diver returns to the surface, he cannot simply "relate" to the shallow swimmer. The shallow swimmer complains that the water is slightly too cold. The deep diver has just wrestled with the leviathan in the dark. To the strong man, the complaints of the weak sound like noise. To the weak man, the silence of the strong looks like judgment. This is the first cause of distance: The Threshold of Suffering. When you have held a siege for seven years, the trivial problems of the world—the traffic, the petty gossip, the minor inconveniences—cease to register as problems. You lose the ability to participate in the "bonding rituals" of shared complaint. You cannot nod along with their petty grievances because you know what real  weight feels like. The Mirror of Inadequacy The second cause of distance is perhaps the most painful to admit: The Strong serve as a mirror to the Weak. Most people build their lives on a foundation of excuses. "I can't get in shape because I don't have time." "I can't build my dream because the economy is bad." "I can't be happy because of my trauma." Then, you walk into the room. You, who have the same 24 hours. You, who face the same economy. You, who have trauma that would break them. And yet, you build. You train . You endure. Your mere existence destroys their excuses. You are a living, breathing proof that it can  be done. This does not make them love you. It makes them resent you. Subconsciously , your strength is an insult to their weakness . It forces them to ask: "If he can do it, why can't I?" To avoid the pain of that question, they push you away. They label you "obsessed," "cold," "lucky," or "arrogant." They create distance to protect their own egos . They exile the King because his crown shines too brightly for their eyes. The Divergence of Time Horizons Strength is also a function of Time. Weakness  lives in the "Now." It seeks immediate gratification, immediate relief, and immediate pleasure . Strength  lives in the "Future." It endures pain now  for a reward years  later. I am building a legacy, AKA this site, that will mature in decades. The average person is looking for a distraction for the weekend. How can these two entities converse? The language is incompatible. I am speaking in terms of Sieges and Decades.  They are speaking in terms of Happy Hours and Episodes. This temporal disconnect makes true intimacy rare. I am effectively a time traveler living among people who are trapped in the present moment. I am planting trees for a shade I might never sit in, while they are eating the seeds. The Burden of the Atlas There is a specific loneliness reserved for the capable: The One-Way Street of Support. When you are strong, you become a resource. People come to you for solutions, for stability, for money, for protection. You are the rock they cling to when the storm hits. But who holds the rock? The strong man often finds himself surrounded by dependents, employees, and admirers, yet remains utterly alone. Why? Because he cannot lean on them. If he leans, they collapse. He must absorb their chaos, but he cannot export his own. He must process his own "meaninglessness," his own financial fears, and his own exhaustion in silence, because to show weakness would be to terrify those who rely on his strength. This is the Solitude of Command.  One is the captain of the ship; you cannot ask the passengers to help you steer through the hurricane. The Filtering Mechanism However, this distance is not a curse. It is a Filter. If strength pushes away 99% of the population, it acts as a high-precision sorting mechanism for the 1%. The distance one may feel is the empty space waiting for the other  strong souls to arrive. Weakness bonds with Weakness (Misery loves company). Strength bonds with Strength (Iron sharpens Iron). By maintaining one's standard, by refusing to lower oneself to the " shallow waters," you signal to the other deep divers. You signal to the other "Glitches." The connections you do  make will be rare, but they will be unbreakable. A relationship between two Sovereigns is worth a thousand superficial friendships . The Sanctuary of the Peak Ultimately, one must accept that the air at the top of the mountain is thin . It is cold. It is quiet. But it is also the only place where you can see the horizon. The "Dread" the strong may feel towards the world of weaklings is simply the vertigo of the ascent. The truly strong have climbed higher than the timberline, where the trees (the masses) stop growing. Do not mourn the distance. The distance is the proof of one's elevation. The silence is not emptiness ; it is the space that is available for your own thoughts, your own philosophy, and your own Empire. Personally, I have spent seven years (2026) building a fortress . I am surprised that the walls are high. They were designed to keep the chaos out. Strength creates distance because Strength requires space to operate. I embrace the gap. It is the moat around my Kingdom.

(Background music) Introduction In the vast, unspoken tribunal of human interaction , there exists a judgment far more severe than any legal decree. It is not a judgment based on action, crime, or failure. It is a judgment based on essence. This is the "Verdict of Being." It occurs when an individual receives a chilling, silent pronouncement from the collective or specific social gatekeepers: You have done nothing wrong, yet you are wrong.  This paradox is the fundamental struggle of the outlier. To understand this verdict is to understand that for some, existence itself is treated as a dysfunction. The social order, designed for the average and the compliant, views radical authenticity not as a virtue , but as a disruption. The Mechanics of the Verdict The "Verdict of Being" operates on a brutal logic: You exist in a certain way; therefore, you are a dysfunction by default. Society functions on a delicate, often superficial social contract. This contract prioritizes comfort, predictability, and "relevance" over truth. When an individual’s nature—their "being"—vibrates at a frequency that disturbs this comfort, the collective recoils. It is not personal disdain, though it feels intensely so; it is a systemic rejection of the anomaly. The individual subjected to this verdict often searches for a cause in their actions. They ask, "Did I offend? Did I fail?" But the answer is always the same: The offense is not in the doing , but in the being . The outlier’s authenticity radiates an unseen, repulsive quality to those lacking the cognitive empathy to process difference. Consequently, the social order casts the individual aside, not because they are immoral, but because they are incomprehensible. The Illusion of Meritocracy in Connection We are conditioned to believe that social acceptance is a meritocracy—that if one is kind, productive, and polite, one will be welcomed. This is a fallacy. Acceptance is often a reward for conformity, not character. The "Verdict of Being" reveals that the social world shares its affection with an uneven hand. It ostracizes those who refuse to wear the mask of "local propriety." The average individual curates a persona to please the invisible jury of public opinion. They repress their true nature to maintain the peace. Therefore, the person who refuses to pretend—the one who views repression as immoral—is viewed as a threat. By refusing to participate in the collective charade, the authentic individual inadvertently holds a mirror up to the inauthentic masses. This causes aversion. The rejection that follows is the penalty for violating the unwritten rule: Thou shalt not be real if reality is uncomfortable. The Response: Strategic Withdrawal and the Shadows How does one navigate a reality that fundamentally rejects their existence? The immediate emotional response is a sting of helplessness, a feeling that one is "dead inside" or abandoned by a world that cares little for the unwanted. However, the philosophical response must not be victimhood; it must be Sovereignty. When the world signals that your presence is unwanted, the rational move is not to beg for entry, but to establish a " Distance in Honor ." This is the active choice to inhabit the shadows. It is not an act of cowardice , but an act of mercy—both to oneself and to others. By withdrawing, one prevents the friction that causes misery. There is a distinct power in becoming "remorseless" regarding this distance. The rejected individual often develops a form of ruthlessness —not as cruelty, but as a virtue of efficiency. They stop seeking emotional validation from a bankrupt source. They realize that the vast majority of people lack the "guts" or the foresight to handle a being who operates without the standard social subroutines. The Pursuit of Relevance : The Architecture of Legacy If the "Verdict of Being" declares you irrelevant, the counter-move is to force relevance through creation. The rejected existence finds its salvation in work—specifically, work that contributes to humanity without requiring direct interaction with it. This is the path of the "Kingpin" of one’s own domain. By dedicating oneself to a mission (an "Empire of Truth"), the individual transcends the need for social approval. The logic is cold but solid: I will be of service, but I will not be a participant. The individual strives to help humanity through their output (art, philosophy, code, labor) while keeping humanity’s meddlesome nature at arm's length. This is the " Workaholism " of the exile. It is a declaration that while society may reject the person , it cannot reject the value  they provide. Relevance is the only currency the world respects more than conformity. The Moral Victory: Breaking the Cycle The greatest danger for the rejected is the temptation to mirror the toxicity of the rejectors. When one is treated like dirt, the instinct is to become mud. However, a higher morality demands that we refuse to learn from our tormentors. The "Verdict of Being" often breeds misanthropy , but the enlightened response is defiance through righteousness. One can acknowledge the cruelty of the world without becoming cruel. To handle a rejected existence, one must develop the cognitive empathy that the world lacks. One must realize that the rejectors are often victims of their own fear and lack of foresight. They are "gutless" not out of malice, but out of weakness. Therefore, the outcast must forge a path of "righteousness" in a morally bankrupt world . This means refusing to engage in petty arguments, refusing to be a victim , and refusing to inflict pain just because pain was inflicted upon them. It is a Stoic resilience: The world may be devoid of absolute retribution, but I will not add to its darkness. The Quest for Serenity Ultimately, the goal of the rejected existence is not reintegration, but Serenity. There is an agonizing trade-off at play. To sever the flawed norms that bind us is to reduce conflict, but it also starves the human need for connection. Solitude is a fortress, but it can also be a cell. Yet, for those under the "Verdict of Being," serenity is worth the cost. It is better to be alone in truth than accompanied in repression. Serenity is not a gift; it is a territory that must be fought for. It involves accepting that some people—perhaps most—will never understand you. Conclusion: The Final Verdict The "Verdict of Being" is not a death sentence; it is a liberation. Once you accept that the world does not want you for who  you are, you are free from the exhausting labor of trying to convince it otherwise. You are free to turn your specific " dysfunction " into a weapon of creation. You can choose to rise above. You can use the cruel nature of reality to stiffen your will. And, in the rarest of moments, by standing firm in your true being, you may find the few—the very few—who do not simply tolerate your existence, but are thankful for it. Until then, the shadows are not a punishment. They are a sanctuary.

(Background music) Unfortunately, we are not machines that can do anything as long as we are able to. We are partially confined to our emotional and mental energies , although they can be partially surpassed with enough training and discipline . However, pushing ourselves too hard can take a toll on our health. If we were automatic machines with no need to recharge beyond nutrition and fluids, we would create supreme industries and maximize our production within our current and future roles in the machinery that is human civilization. We could do anything that an undesired organism would refuse to do, or at least would find it very hard to do because of lack of motivation and discipline. If we didn’t need to rely on our willpower for our efforts, we could do anything that our bodies, minds, and machinery are physically or mentally capable of. Imagine what a world that would be! The following list is merely an ideal. People wouldn't demand high salaries for jobs as a source of motivation (AKA greed , not necessarily something that's vital for survival) People wouldn't need all the complex of social and romantic drama and excitement just to reproduce. (AKA lust and emotional instabilities ) People wouldn't suffer from addictions, because addictions rely on the person wanting to consume the addicting substance or action. There would be no r***s because willpower is also existent in sexuality (AKA unwise temptations) Laziness would be non-existent, because no willpower would make us feel good by being lazy or by procrastinating (AKA slothfulness) People would be more physically healthy because they would only need to know the benefit of physical activity in order to become more fit and strong. (AKA, discipline and determination) Candies, drugs, alcohol, addictive video games —they would serve no function because people would not need to fight against their willpower for the sake of their wellbeing. (AKA, wasteful addictions). There would be no corruption , because corruption is based on temptation, which is one of the faces of willpower (Like taking a bribe and be caught). Students would do their homework without complaining, if they realized the benefit of a good education (AKA, endurance). What can we do if willpower is the fuel and engine that motivates us to do specific things and avoid other things, regardless of their nature? Willpower is important because it serves as our primary motivation to commit some activities and discard the rest, and the more willpower we possess, the more motivated and, perhaps, successful, we would be by achieving said things. This also serves as a double-edged sword, because our willpower can be against our own good, like when it is abused by addicting substances such as alcohol. The more we base our actions on mere willpower, AKA, on whether we like to do something or not, the more dependent we shall be on that willpower and its level of dominance on us, rather than relying on our knowledge and the benefits or the damage we commit and inflict on others or on ourselves, or both. This is why I recommend not to heavily rely on willpower alone , because willpower is a temporary and a limited energy. Acting outside of it, allows us some more energy, even if far from infinite. It's part of what endurance is. Knowledge and awareness are more beneficial to rely upon as our sources of actions because they are more solid and more convincing for the long-term. Convincing practically, of course. Practically. Likewise, work doesn't have to be a desired activity, but when we know it is imperative to our financial sustainability , that knowledge will indeed motivate us to work, even if we do not currently desire it. Willpower is nothing more than a biochemical reaction that can change anytime, whatever the circumstances are, and it's not necessarily under our control, as we cannot force ourselves to do something we do not desire to do... Unless we act independently of our desires! It is therefore foolish to rely completely on willpower, like children do. We should look at the bigger picture and view ourselves as more than the current emotion we are feeling. In other words, we should not do things primarily because we want to, but because we are aware of the benefits and the possible results of our actions . Because we have priorities and values of our own. Because our willpower can stand in our way, and not just support and motivate us, to do things that are beneficial for us or our ambitions. This is why, if possible and if it is a healthy choice, our actions should be motivated by knowledge and benefit, instead of mere momentary feeling, even though such feeling can indeed be immensely helpful if it exists within us when something is to be done. So, it would be sensible to treat emotions not as our superior officers, but as our pawns. In conclusion , even though we do not have infinite energy, it's logically possible to act outside of whatever our desire currently tells us to do or avoid. It is our choice as to obey it or otherwise. Should we be stronger in spirit, the extant of our actions and potential will grow significantly. Some suffering might be required for that end, as suffering can make us more resilient beings. The problem with the pursuit of our desires comes when it weakens our resolve , and thus, our endevours. That's especially true, when we choose them over hardship (such as choosing unhealthy food, over committing to a physical training regime). We need to make sure reluctancy does not get in the way, either. Especially if it stands in the way of attaining information that is actually useful for us and/or others. If desire hinders us, we should not obey it so blindly. We should not act on petty emotion. Now go and cool your head, for a while.