(Background music) This world is filled with hostility. Hatred, violence, and little empathy. The practical solution for me is to isolate, Such a solitary life I expect at any rate. This world is my enemy. It made several want to die, right in front of me. I burned most of my bridges. To stability and peace, they were hostile leeches. And I don't want to save no more, I must put strict boundaries, Even at the cost of very few social possibilities. This world is my enemy. It made several want to die, right in front of me. The world is dangerous to me and that is a fact. I must isolate from this hostile threat. And the depth of my good heartedness is starting to run dry, It allowed me to build an empire set to rectify. This world is my enemy. It made several want to die, right in front of me. This world is my enemy. Being outside feels uncomfortable and eerie. This world is my enemy. It made several want to die, right in front of me. This world is my enemy. Being outside feels uncomfortable and eerie.

(Background music) (French translation by Mr. Roland Leblanc, below) Introduction To live in the world is to be constantly renegotiating a perimeter. We exist precisely at the boundary where internal consciousness meets external reality, which is a line where the chaotic, unceasing demands of the collective crash against the fragile, quiet architecture of the individual mind. This boundary is the edge. How one governs this edge, as in what is allowed to pass through, what is turned away, and how tightly the border is defended, is not merely a matter of temperament or social preference. It is the central question of personal morality. We tend to think of morality as an outward vector: a ledger of duties owed to others, obligations of justice, acts of charity, and the abstention from harm. But this is only half the framework. A moral system that addresses only external action while neglecting the internal sanctuary is incomplete. Before an individual can act with clarity or offer genuine value to anyone else, they must possess a self that is intact. The maintenance of that self requires an edge, which is a cleanly drawn border between the ambient noise of society and the baseline sovereignty of one’s personal space. The Tyranny of the Expanded Horizon Modern existence suffers from an unnatural overextension of human awareness. Through constant streams of broadcast media, global crisis reporting, and the endless friction of networked communication, our perceptual edges have been artificially stretched to encompass the entire planet. We are invited, and often pressured, to carry the weight of distant catastrophes, to harbor opinions on every societal fracture, and to absorb the ambient violence of a restless world directly into our daily living rooms. Yet, human cognition was never designed to process the entire horizon at once. When the edge between the individual and the world dissolves, the result is rarely heightened wisdom or effective action; it is chronic exhaustion. The mind becomes an unmonitored transit hub through which external outrage, fear, and tension pass unimpeded. In this state, authentic moral agency breaks down. When everything demands equal emotional output, nothing can be genuinely addressed. The tragedy of the collapsed edge is that in attempting to absorb everything, we lose the internal stability required to engage meaningfully with anything at all. The Architecture of the Perimeter Constructing a firm edge is not an act of hostility toward the world; it is an act of self-preservation. The edge is the mechanism by which we filter chaos to preserve meaning. It rests on the realization that while the broader ecosystem may be volatile, the immediate physical and mental room we inhabit must remain governed by order. Philosophy has long recognized this distinction. The Stoics divided reality cleanly between what is within human control, our choices, our attention, our internal peace, and what lies beyond it. The shifting tides of regional politics, societal violence, and headline cycles belong almost entirely to the external realm. They are data points to be observed from a distance, if necessary, but never allowed to cross the threshold as uninvited guests disrupting internal equilibrium. To defend one's peace is to recognize that emotional detachment from background noise is not apathy. It is a deliberate moral stance. It is the refusal to allow macro-level instability to puncture micro-level calm. By maintaining a clear perimeter, as in deciding when the screens go quiet, when the inputs cease, and who is granted access to our attention, we create a protected environment where clarity and self-command can survive. Solitude as a Moral Strategy Society frequently misinterprets the defensive edge as cynicism or isolationism. The choice to prioritize quiet over public commentary, or to structure one's daily routine around low-demand stability, can be viewed with suspicion by a culture addicted to constant participation. But intentional boundary-setting is a vital moral strategy. Solitude provides the clean environment where personal values are actually tested and refined. In the crowd, morality easily devolves into compliance; individual judgment is surrendered to the momentum of collective emotion. Only at the edge, in deliberate distance from the noise, can a person evaluate the world with objective, unvarnished logic. The edge offers perspective. Standing at the perimeter allows one to observe the storm without becoming part of its kinetic force. Furthermore, the quality of our human connections depends entirely on the integrity of our edges. A person whose boundaries are routinely breached brings only residue to their interactions, unprocessed anxiety, fatigue, and ambient tension. Conversely, the individual who rigorously guards their quiet baseline enters conversations with genuine focus and presence. The edge does not prevent meaningful connection; it safeguards the mental energy required to sustain it. Living at the Limit Ultimately, any discussion of morals and edges is a call to respect finite limits. Human attention is limited, emotional capacity is bounded, and personal peace is fragile if left unguarded. The primary duty an individual owes to their own life is to steward these finite resources with total clarity. The world out there will continue to be loud, chaotic, and demanding. It will push against your perimeter, insisting that its turmoil take precedence over your quiet. The most effective response to that pressure is neither anger nor complete surrender, but the quiet, consistent enforcement of your own line. You allow the world to be whatever it is out there, while keeping the space in here entirely under your control. At the edge, peace is not something you passively wait to receive. It is something you actively defend. French translation Sur la Morale et les Limites Introduction Vivre dans le monde, c'est constamment redéfinir ses limites. Nous existons précisément à la frontière où la conscience intérieure rencontre la réalité extérieure, là où les exigences chaotiques et incessantes du collectif se heurtent à la fragile et paisible structure de l'esprit individuel. Cette frontière, c'est le bord. La manière dont on la gère, c'est-à-dire ce qui est autorisé à la franchir, ce qui est refusé, et la rigueur avec laquelle on la défend, n'est pas simplement une question de tempérament ou de préférence sociale. C'est la question centrale de la morale personnelle. On a tendance à concevoir la morale comme un vecteur extérieur : un registre des devoirs envers autrui, des obligations de justice, des actes de charité et de l'abstention de nuire. Mais ce n'est que la moitié du cadre. Un système moral qui ne prend en compte que l'action extérieure et néglige le sanctuaire intérieur est incomplet. Avant qu'un individu puisse agir avec lucidité ou apporter une réelle valeur à autrui, il doit posséder un moi intact. Le maintien de cet équilibre de soi exige une limite, une frontière clairement délimitée entre le brouhaha ambiant de la société et la souveraineté fondamentale de son espace personnel. La tyrannie de l'horizon élargi L'existence moderne souffre d'une extension anormale de la conscience humaine. À travers le flux incessant des médias, les reportages sur les crises mondiales et les frictions permanentes de la communication en réseau, nos limites perceptives ont été artificiellement étendues à la planète entière. Nous sommes invités, et souvent contraints, à porter le poids des catastrophes lointaines, à nous forger une opinion sur chaque fracture sociale et à absorber la violence ambiante d'un monde agité directement dans notre quotidien. Pourtant, la cognition humaine n'a jamais été conçue pour appréhender l'horizon dans son intégralité. Lorsque la frontière entre l'individu et le monde s'estompe, il en résulte rarement une sagesse accrue ou une action efficace ; il en résulte un épuisement chronique. L'esprit devient une plaque tournante non contrôlée où l'indignation, la peur et les tensions extérieures circulent sans entrave. Dans cet état, toute capacité d'agir morale authentique s'effondre. Quand tout exige une implication émotionnelle équivalente, rien ne peut être véritablement abordé. La tragédie de l'effondrement de notre frontière réside dans le fait qu'en tentant d'absorber tout, nous perdons la stabilité intérieure nécessaire à toute interaction significative avec quoi que ce soit. L'Architecture du Périmètre Construire une frontière solide n'est pas un acte d'hostilité envers le monde; c'est un acte d'autoconservation. La frontière est le mécanisme par lequel nous filtrons le chaos pour préserver le sens. Elle repose sur la prise de conscience que, si l'écosystème global peut être instable, l'espace physique et mental immédiat que nous occupons doit rester régi par l'ordre. La philosophie reconnaît depuis longtemps cette distinction. Les stoïciens divisaient clairement la réalité entre ce qui est sous notre contrôle – nos choix, notre attention, notre paix intérieure – et ce qui se situe au-delà. Les fluctuations de la politique régionale, la violence sociale et l'actualité médiatique appartiennent presque entièrement au domaine extérieur. Ce sont des données à observer à distance, si nécessaire, mais qu'il ne faut jamais laisser franchir le seuil comme des intrus perturbant notre équilibre intérieur. Préserver sa tranquillité, c'est reconnaître que le détachement émotionnel face au bruit ambiant n'est pas de l'apathie. C'est une position morale délibérée. C'est refuser de laisser l'instabilité macro-économique perturber le calme micro-économique. En maintenant un périmètre clair, par exemple en décidant quand éteindre les écrans, quand cesser les sollicitations et à qui accorder notre attention, nous créons un environnement protégé où la lucidité et la maîtrise de soi peuvent s'panouir. La solitude comme stratégie morale La société interprète souvent à tort cette attitude défensive comme du cynisme ou de l'isolationnisme. Le choix de privilégier le calme aux commentaires publics, ou d'organiser son quotidien autour d'une stabilité peu exigeante, peut être perçu avec suspicion par une culture accro à la participation constante. Pourtant, fixer des limites de manière intentionnelle est une stratégie morale essentielle. La solitude offre un environnement propice à l'expérimentation et au perfectionnement des valeurs personnelles. Au sein de la foule, la moralité se mue facilement en soumission ; le jugement individuel cède la place à l'élan des émotions collectives. Ce n'est qu'en marge, à distance délibérée du tumulte, qu'une personne peut évaluer le monde avec une logique objective et sans fard. Le fait de rester en marge offre une perspective nouvelle. Se tenir à la périphérie permet d'observer la tempête sans en subir les conséquences. De plus, la qualité de nos relations humaines dépend entièrement de l'intégrité de nos limites. Une personne dont les frontières sont constamment franchies n'apporte à ses interactions que ces séquelles suivantes: anxiété non résolue, fatigue et tension ambiante. À l'inverse, l’individu qui préserve rigoureusement son équilibre intérieur participe aux conversations avec une attention et une présence authentiques. Le fait d’établir une frontière n'empêche pas les liens profonds ; elle les protège et diminue l'énergie mentale nécessaire pour les maintenir. Vivre à la limite En fin de compte, toute discussion sur la morale et les limites est un appel au respect des limites finies. L'attention humaine est limitée, la capacité émotionnelle est restreinte et la paix intérieure est fragile si on la laisse sans protection. Le devoir premier de chacun envers sa propre vie est de gérer ces ressources limitées avec une lucidité absolue. Le monde extérieur continuera d'être bruyant, chaotique et exigeant. Il repoussera vos limites, insistant pour que son agitation prenne le pas sur votre tranquillité. La réponse la plus efficace à cette pression n'est ni la colère ni la capitulation totale, mais le maintien calme et constant de vos propres limites. Vous laissez le monde être ce qu'il est à l'extérieur, tout en gardant votre espace intérieur entièrement sous votre contrôle. À la limite, la paix n'est pas quelque chose que l'on attend passivement. C'est quelque chose que l'on défend activement.

Article Synopsis by Mr. C. Kingsley and Co. The article "Why I Hate Sleeping -- And Why I Learned to Ignore This Hatred for Reality" is a personal, introspective examination of sleep and its complex role in human life. Mr. Tomasio explores the topic from various angles, including scientific, philosophical, and historical perspectives, providing a richness to the discussion. The article is enhanced by quotes from figures like George Orwell and Rainer Maria Rilke, as well as research links and resources, which lend credibility and depth to the discourse. Philosophical musings on time and Productivity are explored, exploring hypothetical questions about what life might be like if sleep were unnecessary. This exploration leads to a broader reflection on human nature, creativity, and sacrifice, sparking thought-provoking questions for the reader. In conclusion, the article stands out for its raw honesty, intellectual curiosity, and wide-ranging exploration of sleep from personal, historical, and philosophical perspectives. What is required of us now is to rest, recharge in nature, pay attention to dreams and downloads and new communications, and share! -- Mickey Eilon (Philosocom's Subcategory on Health) (Background music) Introduction Since childhood and until recently, other than the fact that sleeping is essential to existence, I have never understood why we humans need to sleep. And surely the need to dream. Of course, we need sleep to re-energize, to recover, and to be more awake. Other than those reasons, do we know why we humans need to sleep? How about other species that do not, and still manage to live and thrive successfully? Insects and spiders, for instance, can't close their eyes, so it remains uncertain if they can sleep. That includes Jumping Spiders, despite seemingly having sleep-related patterns. After thinking about this, I used to believe that sleeping truly is a liability, more than it is a great benefit. That was especially when considering the fact that we sleep around a third of our lives, or attempt to do so. This means that, because of said liability, we "waste away" a third of our lives, while other few species get to be awake to a greater extent of their lifetime, like giraffes. The most frustrating thing I find about sleeping, personally, is this... Even after spending an above-average duration of sleeping, I still found that I am tired. Later on in life I realized this has to do with anxiety and depression. However, the reason I haven't considered this is because my fatigue compromised my thinking. Back then, the question that rose from this was, why sleep a lot when there's a reasonable chance that you'll be tired anyways? Here are some possible answers to these questions, before my transformation allowed me to conduct research far better. Extra material is added below: Part I: Why do we need to sleep more than other animals? There are many theories about why we need to sleep. Some scientists believe that sleep helps to better preserve memories, while others believe that it helps to repair and regenerate cells. Furthermore, others believe that sleep helps to regulate our emotions and mood. Ants are very different from humans in many ways. They have a much simpler nervous system and they lack a brain. Given that sleep has to do with emotional processing, it is possible that humans have a therapeutic need for sleep. Sleep also has to do with nutrition. Koalas could need an insane amount of sleep due to their leaf-eating activities. In fact, much of their time awake is spent on eating leaves. We can conclude from this that sleep has a lot to do with cognitive processes and energy consumption. This highlights the fact that we should see beyond our confirmation bias, as this article originally was against sleep, not in support of it. Admitting your faults is the first step to begin towards correction. And, in the case of my plans... towards greater rectification. Part II: Is sleeping a liability? Sleep when you die -- John Duran Whether or not sleeping is a liability is a matter of context. Sleeping while being a military sentinel could get you punished. By the same token, Homeless people struggle to sleep in shelters because they weren't made for sleeping, ironically. Therefore, when I speak of "context" I refer to the environmental conditions and to the implications of sleeping (or not) within these conditions. Some people believe that the benefits of sleep outweigh the costs, while others believe that the opposite is true. Given that it is unlawful to sleep as a guard, can we really provide a general answer that fits anyone's role or state in life? That can be seen as the philosopher's trap: The idea that universal statements certainly apply to any situation. It's up to each individual to decide how much sleep they need and how much they are willing to sacrifice in order to get it. This depends on their plans. Maybe if you seek to gain power in the army, maybe try being disciplined enough to not sleep while on duty. On the other hand, if you have a test tomorrow, sleeping could help you pass it with greater success. Personal Reflections I used to minimize the value of sleep, because I believe there are far more important things than myself. Things like my work. Things like this empire of a website I'm trying to build. Even as a kid, I always felt tired, even after sleeping a reasonable amount of time. This tiredness still haunts me at times, even as an adult. However, it mainly had to do with my 16-yearlong depression. My depression started upon the completion of my first thought experiment at the age of 11. However, as I took greater care of my health, and as I found a woman to love, I was able to sleep far better. With reduced stress, which could help reduce insomnia, my improved sleep gradually left me less and less tired when I woke up. Part III: The Sacrifice of Geniuses Sleep is something that we know we need, but we don't know exactly why. Either way, we know the many benefits of a good night's sleep. Consider, however, the collective aspect of sleeping, when one's sleep is granted by the inner ruthlessness of another: “We sleep soundly in our beds, because rough men stand ready in the night to do violence on those who would harm us" -- George Orwell This is when it comes to military affairs. However, what about within another, less-than-obvious field? Imagine a reality where we did not need to spend a third of our lifetime sleeping; a reality where we did not even need to rest in the afternoon or evening after a hard day's work. Imagine a reality where we would have far more free time on our hands after returning from our jobs. And it would've been just because sleeping wouldn't be necessary. As researched for the renovated article, sleep is also there for cognition, AKA, for our intellect. Ironically, however, it is said that "the great fathers" of history, from Leonardo DaVinci to Nikola Tesla, have actually slept less than the average person. Many famous people, especially politicians and ingenious inventors, slept very little. Partly, due to the amount of work they had, partly because they practiced polyphasic sleep routine trying not to waste too much time sleeping. -- Vladimir Marchenko When Sacrifice is not an Assumption Surely, sleep is a very comfortable activity, especially when the bed and the temperature of the room are comfortable. However, in the eyes of geniuses who may greatly value their work, this doesn't have to justify such a liability taking up so much of their lives. For instance, I've been studying the art of writing philosophy articles since 2013. The amount of practice it took me to get where I am currently as a writer deprived me of much sleep when I was younger. A more historic example is Michelangelo's painting of the Sistine Chapel. This beautiful piece took him 4 years to create. To give you a final example for this case, it took Beethoven 6 years to complete his final symphony. Furthermore, it took Beethoven several decades, bringing it into conception. These examples prove to us how the pursuit of mastery could be a great sacrifice that could come at the cost of our health. And, as much as geniuses are eccentric to the point of social rejection, their lofty projects could not only outperform their social competence, but outlive it too, in the form of legacy. Given the innovative nature of genius projects, perhaps this sacrifice of health can be done for the greater good? It is preferable morally to devise a symphony than the atomic bomb, after all. Words of Departure “Therefore, dear Sir, love your solitude and try to sing out with the pain it causes you. For those who are near you are far away... and this shows that the space around you is beginning to grow vast.... be happy about your growth, in which of course you can't take anyone with you, and be gentle with those who stay behind; be confident and calm in front of them and don't torment them with your doubts and don't frighten them with your faith or joy, which they wouldn't be able to comprehend. Seek out some simple and true feeling of what you have in common with them, which doesn't necessarily have to alter when you yourself change again and again; when you see them, love life in a form that is not your own and be indulgent toward those who are growing old, who are afraid of the aloneness that you trust.... and don't expect any understanding; but believe in a love that is being stored up for you like an inheritance, and have faith that in this love there is a strength and a blessing so large that you can travel as far as you wish without having to step outside it.” -- Rainer Maria Rilke Lastly, if there's something that I am grateful for, is the fact that I have much free time to write. That is despite sleep taking so much of my lifespan. It truly is a privilege not every writer has. Writers are not really wealthy. And, because writing is not as profitable as other pursuits in life, such as being a small business owner, you might find yourself writing regularly only later in life. However, and either way, should humanity ever invent something, such as a one-time pill, seen in fiction like The Matrix, such a thing could prevent us from ever needing to sleep. Then, many more books, articles and videos would be created. By others. By me, perhaps... Improve your relationship with your need for sleep and try prioritizing this basic need over your lofty desires. We should focus on needs first, which will then allow us to better fulfill our desires, and our hopes and dreams, with greater competency and with greater clarity. Sleep well on these sources: https://www.ninds.nih.gov/health-information/public-education/brain-basics/brain-basics-understanding-sleep https://www.quora.com/Why-do-ants-never-sleep/answer/Don-Stevon https://www.cchwyo.org/news/2022/september/sleeping-like-a-genius/

Synopsis by Mr. Joseph Bright The article "Dreams and the Multiverse Theory -- Understanding the Metaphysical Philosophy Behind Dreaming" explores the connection between dreams, the subconscious mind, and the multiverse theory. It highlights the potential for dreams to represent alternate realities or parallel universes, and the role of dreams in processing emotions and memories. The article also explores the multiverse theory, suggesting infinite universes with different realities, and personal dreams, offering a profound exploration of human imagination and the subconscious. (Background music) (Philosocom's Directory On Dreams) The Vivid Landscape of Your Subconscious Have you ever woken up from a dream feeling like you've visited another world? It's a common experience to find yourself in strange but strangely familiar situations while dreaming. You, as yourself, are the protagonist navigating these alternative scenarios that may be experienced as genuine reality. Being aware that they are dreams while you're dreaming is known as lucid dreaming and is far rarer than regular dreaming. In other words, our ability to distinguish between reality and illusion is compromised. Or is it? While we understand these dreams are fictional creations of our minds, several unanswered questions remain: Could these situations actually exist on some level beyond our conscious awareness? Is reality vaster than we perceive or choose to perceive it? What if reality itself is found in the mind, like the dreams themselves? What if there is no world beyond the mind, similar to dreams? What if dreams are extensions of reality? What if we need to sleep to dream? To answer some of these questions, I quote Mr. John Duran: The universe never started making sense until we started forcing it to. Perhaps the answers didn't exist until we needed them to. Mankind not only requires 'rational' answers, but we also demand them for our very sanity. We pound the clay of raw chaos into what seems Order, but only to a point. Push it all too far, and disorder pushes back, undoing the rationality of what we believed we have discovered because we've discovered nothing really, but created our own answers, in our eternally irrational search for the rational. This persistent feeling of encountering alternate realities within dreams is fascinating, as it challenges our understanding of dreams as mere illusions. This further highlights their mysterious nature. Furthermore, it serves as an indication to the richness and complexity of the subconscious mind. Our dreams can be a playground for exploring different aspects of ourselves, confronting fears, or even creating new possibilities. Other than serving as gate-aways to multiple realities, here are some possible explanations for this phenomenon: Processing Emotions and Experiences: Dreams are often a way for our brains to process emotions and experiences, including trauma, from our waking life. Perhaps these bizarre situations are a metaphorical way of working through challenges or desires. Memories and Imagination: Our dreams often weave together fragments of memories and our imagination. Elements presented might be based on places you've visited, things you've read, or experiences you've had. Dreams help us process memory as well. The Power of the Subconscious: The subconscious mind is a vast and unexplored territory. It's possible that these dreams tap into a deeper well of creativity and possibility that we don't fully understand. To quote Sigmund Freud: “The conscious mind may be compared to a fountain playing in the sun and falling back into the great subterranean pool of subconscious from which it rises.”  Exploring Parallel Worlds Through My Dreams Have I ever woken from a dream feeling an unsettling sense of familiarity, as if you'd experienced that situation before? Absolutely. This phenomenon, known as déjà rêvé (French for "already dreamt"), has captivated my imagination for years. It's this feeling, coupled with the vividness of my dreams, that fuels the intriguing possibility – could dreams be gateways to alternate realities? The multiverse theory, a popular concept in science fiction and increasingly explored in cosmology, proposes the existence of infinite universes, each with their own unique set of laws and realities. Imagine countless versions of myself living out different lives in these parallel universes. To quote Paul Sutter: Multiverse theory suggests that our universe, with all its hundreds of billions of galaxies and almost countless stars, spanning tens of billions of light-years, may not be the only one. Instead, there may be an entirely different universe, distantly separated from ours — and another, and another. Indeed, there may be an infinity of universes, all with their own laws of physics, their own collections of stars and galaxies (if stars and galaxies can exist in those universes), and maybe even their own intelligent civilizations. It could be that our universe is just one member of a much grander, much larger multitude of universes: a multiverse. Many people describe being able to fly in their dreams. In moons like Titan, you can actually fly. What if in these dreams, where we fly, we are in fact on a planet where the same physics of the Titan moon are applied? Encountering diverse versions of myself – living alone in my childhood home, wielding political power, or experiencing the same mutual love I haven't known before I got to know and relish it... These vivid dreamscapes, with recurring elements like my old apartment, hint at a personalized dreamscape that transcends the fleeting, nonsensical quality some attribute to dreams. It is important to acknowledge the limitations of our understanding. Our sense of logic is limited because our general understanding of this reality, is far, far from omniscience. The science of dreams, also called oneirology, as it still leaves much to be desired, and remains theoretical. I don't definitively know why I dream, and even dream analysis can be subjective and open to interpretation. Some dreams could be a way for my subconscious to process emotions and experiences, weaving together memories, desires, and anxieties into a fantastical narrative. And at the same time, it could be a portal to infinite realities... Such is the power of the mind. Keeping a dream journal can be a powerful tool for delving deeper into your dreamscapes, and in theory, record these worlds. By recording your dreams and reflecting on recurring themes and emotions, you might unlock hidden aspects of your subconscious, and gain a richer understanding of this fascinating realm within you. Ultimately, whether dreams are windows to alternate realities or elaborate creations of our minds, they offer a gateway (pun intended) to explore the boundless potential of human imagination. Déjà Rêvé and the Multiverse I don't know for certain if there are more universes than this one. The universe, after all, is supposed to contain all that there is. However, if there are several, or infinite, universes, then this universe can't be infinite, because there need to be more universes in the vast vacuum of space, for the multiverse theory to be true. A more radical theory of mine argues that everything, illusions as well, truly exist. Nonetheless, this universe is ridiculously vast and is always expanding. I'm uncertain if we as humanity would ever be able to explore it all, like we did with planet Earth. Thinking about it, we haven't even explored all the depths of our planet's oceans. More than 80% of the ocean remains unexplored. Whether or not we would actually travel to another universe and meet different versions of ourselves and of others, is beyond me. And we cannot work towards a greater understanding of this reality if we refuse adopting a pro-innovation mentality. Exploring the entirety of our own universe seems like a far-fetched dream (pun intended, again). Meeting different versions of myself and others across these universes? That's science fiction at its finest, though it does make me wonder... There's a peculiarity in my dreams that fuels this fascination with alternate realities. I think I dreamt of dying, and yet, I never return to those dreamscapes. It's as if that particular version of me ceases to exist. I one time also predicted a video game in a dream before its actual release. On the other hand, some dream "universes" reappear in my mind, the ones where I don't die. Is this a strange echo of the multiverse theory? A hidden logic? Hidden norms? Does dying in a dream signify the end of that specific reality, just like death in our waking world seems final? However, should I ever revisit a dreamscape where I died, it would shatter this theory entirely. I... never did. Especially in dreams where I was killed several times during their session.. Interestingly, I never have conversations with alternate versions of myself in these dreams. I am still me, Tomasio, but experiencing wildly different circumstances. Sometimes my dreams blur the lines between reality and fantasy. I might be convinced I'm awake, or conversely, be hyper-aware that I'm dreaming. The inconsistency of this awareness is another layer of the mystery. There have even been dreams where I become a fictional character, yet retain my own core identity. Take my a specific dream of mine for instance. I wasn't Darth Vader as seen in Star Wars, my own version of him. Emperor overthrown, "son" defeated, Rebel Alliance crushed – it was an epic dream victory, where the Galactic Empire's philosophy got a chance to be finally replaced. Is there something more to them, objectively? Thinking about it makes me hate sleep far less. A Reflection on Waking Reality How often do we truly consider the implications of this experience? Perhaps it's because dreams are fleeting, existing only in the transient space between wakefulness and sleep. This fleeting nature of dreams makes me contemplate the very nature of value. To consider more "objective value" to this reality, just because we always return to it, could be a product of the Time Lapse Fallacy. If, by some strange twist of existence, we woke up each day to a different reality, just like in dreams, wouldn't our actions and experiences lose their weight? In this hypothetical world, where yesterday's reality ceases to exist and tomorrow's is unknown, the choices we make and the bonds we forge might feel meaningless. But must they be meaningless, just because they feel to us like that? This thought experiment forces me to appreciate the unique value of our shared waking reality. The continuity of our experiences, and the consequences that ripple outwards from our actions – these are the very things that imbue our lives with significance. I cannot effectively work on Philosocom if this thought experiment was a reality.... ...But what if they are reality, to some? Who knows? Hahahaha.

(For more on the subject please read this) (Philosocom Writing Directory) (Background music) How to Find Value in Content Beyond Self-Expression Imagine an art gallery filled not with masterpieces that provoke thought and inspire wonder, but with selfies hanged across every wall. It may seem narcissistic, doesn't it? In the ever-expanding realm of content creation, this egocentricity often goes unnoticed, and sometimes even celebrated. However, this obsession with self-expression risks overshadowing the other purpose of art: to connect, to challenge, and to contribute something greater than ourselves. This isn't a personal grudge against poets (AKA, those who write poetry, not necessarily live from it). But when personal narratives become the sole focus, devoid of any attempt to bridge the gap between author and audience, their content becomes little more than digital diary entries, lost in the endless scroll countless internet feeds. Genuine emotion shouldn't be sacrificed. The heart, with its raw intensity, fuels powerful expression. But the heart, untethered by reason, can also be lack foresight. A truly significant impact, lies in harnessing that emotional fire and directing it outwards, illuminating something beyond the author's own reflection in front of a lake. Take philosophy, for example. Stripped of its elitist aura, it's simply the pursuit of understanding, the relentless questioning of "why?". Anyone with the capacity for thought can be a philosopher, just as anyone with a pulse can write poetry. But the mark of a truly impactful thinker is not their fluency in jargon, but their ability to translate their internal exploration into insights that resonate with others, offering alternative perspectives, challenging assumptions, and ultimately enriching the collective pool of understanding. In this age of information overload, standing out from the crowd requires more than just self-exposure. It demands value, something that extends beyond the author's ego and resonates with the diverse audience. When I visit an art museum, I don't seek to simply recognize objects – that's a given. I would seek art that provokes introspection, that awakens things within me, that leaves me changed in some fundamental way. A certain game revealed to me an emotion that is combined with Japanese culture. That is, in a way, not only art for me, but also something that offers me additional value, thus increasing the overall value, of that something. Similarly, when I encounter writing, be it poetry, philosophy, or even social media posts, I hope to find a spark... some connection that transcends the mere exchange of information. Otherwise, why would I care as much as I could? The "sad reality" of content creation is this: in the battle for attention, navel-gazing selfies rarely click, unless you foster yourself a followership of simps. The creators who truly connect, who offer something genuinely valuable to their audience, rise above the digital noise. They carve a space in our minds not by shouting "Look at me!", but by whispering something that resonates within the quiet corners of our own hearts and minds. Let us move beyond the tyranny of the self, or escape from it, more precisely. Let us use our experiences, our emotions, our unique perspectives not as shields of isolation, but as bridges to connect, to enlighten, to contribute something meaningful to the world around us. Only then, will our content transcend the fleeting click, leaving a lasting impression that echoes far beyond the confines of our own egos. From Heartfelt to Helpful: A Way of Redefining the Role of the Poet We've all heard the idolized, pretentious image of the poet (and poetry itself): a solitary person, pouring their heart, crafting verses that capture the essence of human experience. But in a world flooded with content, where every fleeting thought finds an echo on social media, is there still relevance for such self-expression? After all, just about anyone good enough with writing and emotional intelligence can do just that. It's not that personal narratives are irrelevant. The raw vulnerability of a well-written poem can be a powerful tool, forging connections and triggering the domination of love. But when poems become mere navel-gazing exercises, when verses are self-indulgent echoes of the poet's own ego, they risk becoming lost in the endless scroll of digital noise. And writing is of course a written form of communication, delivered to other people, if not kept to us. Appealing is key. The true power of poetry lies in its ability to transcend the individual, and be used as a source of collective power, capable of building powerbases under shared pieces, which is also the overall way culture works. It's in the way words can paint landscapes that resonate across people and communities, in the way metaphors can illuminate hidden truths in insightful ways, in the way rhythm and rhyme can stir emotions we didn't know we possessed. Thus, poetry can be elevated from a basics of narcissistic vanity to a greater force, capable of altruistic contributions for the world. This is where the poet becomes more than just a reporter of feelings; they become a meditator, bridging the gap between the inner and external world, offering glimpses of both ways. Emotions are pawns. They can not only be experienced in an honest way, but they can also be depersonalized. Most importantly for this article, they can be directed outwards, be used to create something that resonates with others. Imagine a poem that doesn't just describe loneliness but offers solace to those who feel the same. Imagine verses that don't just lament societal ills, but spark conversations and inspire action to handle said ills. This is the true greater potential of poetry in a rapid age of information: an age when we realize the true, diverse functionality of data (poetry included). And that is also how any content creator can get his relevance beyond the ceilings of anonymity. Think of philosophers don't just contemplate abstract concepts; they dissect them, question them, and offer new perspectives that can reshape our understanding of the world. Similarly, poets can serve as voices for the complexity of genuine emotion, helping us navigate the complex landscapes of our inner lives, offering words that resonate with the human experience under the growing universal culture formed by the virtual layer of reality. Let us use our language as a tool, not for selfish power-seeking, but for connection, for understanding of reality, for making the world a little bit more beautiful, one poem at a time. Only then will the poet's voice rise above the digital din, leaving a lasting echo that resonates far beyond the confines of their own words.

(Philosocom's Directory On Emotions) (Philosocom's Hidden Logic Systems Directory) Summary by Anonymous The article explores a unique emotional experience that arises during deep solitude. Mr. Tomasio describes this emotion as distinct from loneliness or isolation, characterized by a sense of detachment from human connection and a profound connection with oneself. This unnamed emotion is seen as a catalyst for personal growth and self-discovery. By embracing solitude, Mr. Tomasio seeks to transcend the limitations of human nature and achieve a higher state of being. The article also delves into the challenges and rewards of solitude, highlighting the importance of self-awareness and the potential for spiritual and emotional growth. Mr. Tomasio ultimately suggests that by exploring the depths of solitude, one can uncover hidden aspects of oneself and attain a greater, unconventional understanding of the human condition. (Background music) The Unnamed Enigma: Embracing the Unfamiliar in Deep Solitude I have discovered something unique, a hidden facet of my being revealed only during extended periods of disconnection from the world as a physical hermit. Not just silence, but complete isolation, devoid of even the faintest whisper of human interaction. Within this profound quietude, an emotion arises, one for which even language seems inadequate. It defies conventional labels of positive or negative. No, it washes over me like a spectral tide, transforming me into a "phantom," adrift in a realm beyond conventional understanding. This mysterious, unnamed emotion is the true essence of solitude, a hidden gem veiled from most eyes. Loneliness it is not. The ache of isolation has long since faded, replaced by a quiet mastery of my own company. I can endure solitude for extended stretches, not just endure it, but flourish in its embrace, forming the article empire you read before you. It empowers me, grants me freedom and a sense of being a little less dead inside. This is why I've retreated partially from the world, finding solace primarily in my work for humanity, where the lack of noise grants me the space to cultivate this unique connection with myself, meant as a means for you, for altruism. Yet, the emotion I describe isn't simply "Solitarus," the love one finds in being alone, a concept already foreign to many. That too, is a contributing factor to my semi-hermit status, for "Solitarus" or "Bdiduta" are fleeting moments glimpsed only in the deepest moments of isolation. This unnamed emotion, however, was felt very rarely. It was a symphony played on the strings of my own being, its melody both melancholic and strangely beautiful, the same as it was alienating. It somehow makes sense, giving that, according to the "Grey Problem", we are containers of internal conflicts and contradictions. Perhaps one day, I will find the words to capture its essence, to share this enigmatic experience with the world. But for now, it remains an unnamed wonder, a secret treasure unearthed in the vast, silent expanse of solitude. Either way, we are more than what we're letting ourselves to be. Embracing the Alien Grip of Solitude That emotion of love, so great it makes one wonder why else exist besides survival and other minimal pursuits, is not the emotion I speak of. The strange emotion I describe pulls me away from "humanness" and towards something "alien." I can only attempt to describe this "alien" feeling through its effects. It's not exhaustion, for then I would crave the escape towards company. No, perhaps this is what I hinted at in my earlier work, where I spoke of solitude as something that can "ascend" the human spirit beyond the confines of its social nature. While I can't pinpoint the exact number of times I've felt this "alien" feeling, the first instance remains vivid. I used to go on incredibly long walks, hours on end, devoid of any interaction. That particular walk wasn't anything special, I believe, yet the feeling materialized only there. A bittersweet melancholy, not quite misery, happiness, or sadness. It simply exists, obscure and enigmatic. This feeling appeared rarely throughout my life; I would estimate less than five occurrences. If you've ever experienced the hauntingly serene ambience of the Silent Hill video games, that's the closest approximation I can offer for this alien sensation within solitude. Some might subscribe to the philosophy that we've already unearthed the full spectrum of human emotion. But have we truly? Society, you see, acts as a distraction, a means to avoid confronting the mysteries, blessings and illnesses within ourselves. Through acts of meditation we can transport the subconscious into the conscious, as we become aware of the things that manage us. The fears, the desires, and so on. We shouldn't expect society to understand what we ourselves fail to understand properly. For the person who is the most with themselves, is themselves. We are capable of professorship about ourselves, others might not. By choosing solitude, I acknowledged the mental health risks that lurked there: alienation, boredom, and depression. However, I yearned for what many others escaped from: to conquer the challenges that reside within the darkness of being alone, to transcend them, to become immune to the negativity that can arise from prolonged solitude. And ultimately, to dispel that darkness within me, so I won't be immoral like many others. That, if I were an alchemist, would be my "Philosopher's Stone." In Search of the Nameless Back when I wrote my books, I wanted to become my own variant of the "Ubermensch" as described by Nietzsche, but only when it came to society and solitude -- to be above them both, and thus truly independent of the emotions that follow each. No loneliness; no craving for love; no desire to socialize; and finally, no suffering regarding either society or solitude; no suffering of any kind revolving around human interaction, or lack thereof. Is it what I seek, this strange emotion for which I have no name? It is blank as the winter sky, and yet, it is intense as lightning. It makes you feel like something's changing, like something is transitioning, but you do not know exactly what. I've read about hermits more extreme than myself; people who lived days and months on boats, in the wilderness, in Antarctica. I still have that book somewhere, the Loner's Manifesto by Anneli Rufus. They did not describe the emotion I am trying to describe here, and I do not know why. Perhaps they kept it to themselves, I don't know. What I wish to be, nonetheless, is a man who is beyond society and seclusion, someone who could work out with each. Since I have been so much with others throughout my life, in the form of school and work, I decided years ago that the next phase is to sink deep, deep into solitude, communicating with others only when necessary. The definition of "necessary", however, is not as concrete as it may seem, so I had to write an article explaining it. I seek to survive beyond my death, and thus I made this site, so I will survive within your own memory, but of course, that's not the sole purpose of this site, as you may already know. Beyond Duality, Beyond Suffering Whether this strange emotion returns to grace me with its presence, I'm unsure. Perhaps I'll delve deeper into its nature, perhaps it will remain an intangible notion. What I can say with certainty is that physical isolation has often served as the spark, the catalyst -- that is what ignites my exploration of transcending the inherent "socialness" of humanity. To become of greater humanity, morally. To become a more moral being, you must first know yourself better, so you will know what within you can be improved. Even through writing, we can discover ourselves better. We can do so, and empirically realize that we exist beyond many unnecessary dependencies, beyond our attachments, and even... beyond our solitude or loneliness. I struggle to capture the essence of this emotion in words. It exists outside the binary dance of society and solitude, nurtured by profound moments of silence and physical disconnection. In its embrace, you shed the being a "concrete" human, dissolving into a "fluid" "phantom." Abstract, indeed. You realize how small and miniscule you are, and you also realize how complex you are, at the same time. Indeed, as the philosopher Zeno realized, reality is infinite.

(Inspired song) (Philosocom's Subcategory on Revenge) (Philosocom's Directory on Peace) (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). You're but a ghost to me, A mere relic. Your vision's hard to unsee, It's pathetic. But it will be all over, When I'll retribute. Your given adjective, It should've not been said, And I have a plan, Despite fatigue and sad, And within the brain, Mad is the Rubinshtein. Humanity's realization, For that I await, To attain renown, And seal your fake name's fate… The temptation charms me. In the peaceful solitude of the wilderness, The memory of you remains so hard and intense, For serenity I have failed to value its worth, So instead I'll exact influence from the peaceful lair! So instead I'll exact influence from the peaceful lair! I'm exhausted, From your mental visage, It makes me wish, To be old in age, And be finished, Sleep like fish. "Irrelevant?" That is your mistake! A mistake I'll make sure the world'll know you've made… Despite the fatigue, now. Get a taste of my ambitious philosophership! I will sink each and every one of your battleships! I am an eccentric man, Why underestimate? From the peaceful lair, revenge I will exact! From the peaceful lair, revenge I will exact! I will exact! Get a taste of my ambitious philosophership! I will sink each and every one of your battleships! For serenity I have failed to value its worth, So instead I'll exact influence from the peaceful lair! In the peaceful solitude of the wilderness, The memory of you remains so hard and intense, And I am an eccentric man, Why underestimate? So instead I'll exact influence from the peaceful lair! I will gain relevance! They're haunting my head, The dreams of the top, I don't let them stop. Rele-Relevance! They're haunting my head, To only in death stop... ****************************************************** (For long they didn't stop, But they will, eventually.... ...Due to your own Irony, Ms. Chen)

(Philosocom's Kaiser Basileus Articles) (Part 1) Article Synopsis by Mr. Chris Kingsley and Co. "Dystopia -- 21st Century Socio-Political Critique" by Mr. Kaiser Basileus is a comprehensive critique of modern society, focusing on government policies, economic disparities, social norms, and systemic injustices. The author's views are expressed as those of the guest author, are not necessarily those of Mr. Rubinshtein or Philosocom. The critique covers a wide range of topics, including legal and economic systems, social norms, and systemic injustices. The piece contains numerous thought-provoking insights, particularly regarding the nature of power, societal norms, and the role of government. Statements like "Rhetoric is the dark art of counting effectiveness more important than truth '' encapsulate deep philosophical critiques that invite readers to reconsider commonly accepted ideas. In conclusion, "Dystopia -- 21st Century Socio-Political Critique, Part 2" is a valuable contribution to contemporary socio-political discourse, encouraging critical reflection and dialogue. (Background music) Mr. Rubinshtein's Description of "Dystopia" (Reminder) Mr. Kaiser's "Dystopia" is a socio-political critique on contemporary society, covering many aspects of modern life. His unique perspectives offer a refreshing look on many features of our lives in which we learned to accept as completely legitimate. "Dystopia" is here to challenge our beliefs and expand our discourse in contemporary philosophy, from society to ethics to politics. The original document given to me is extremely long and as such will be divided to several parts. I hope you will benefit from it. Enjoy. Part 2 Basically, all of America was a for-profit real estate development scam for people to be able to easily access. Inherently negative vices is a problem of the state, for them to want them is a problem of society. (Mr. Rubinshtein's note: Mr. Kaiser's argument is supported by scams such as the Yazoo Land Fraud, the Brooklyn Bridge Scam, and more, throughout the centuries). Governments tend to always use additive solutions rather than subtractive ones. The US government does not solve my problems, does not allow me to solve my problems, and stands directly in the way of any alternate system that might allow for either. When police investigate themselves, the question they should be trying to answer is not whether someone did something wrong - that should be obvious. It's whether they did right. They must be held to a higher standard. Enclosure, copyright, usury, civil forfeiture, qualified immunity, derivatives are all immoral. Protecting fossils, ruins, etc. on behalf of people in the future by making them unavailable to interested people today is morally abhorrent. White men, from good families having even the tiniest overall societal advantage is sufficient that they dominate the upper end of the class system, where the tiniest advantage can "win the game". (That inherent instability is the only reason all power isn't entirely entrenched.) Modern society sees this demographic discrepancy as representative of the state of society as a whole. However, for ordinary people those advantages are lost in a sea of resource conflicts and lesser evil choices (ie compromise). Cultural norms are always aligned with the past. It's a sadistic assumption that it's ever ok to have to prove something to a government than never attempts to prove itself to you. Legal contracts only protect those who can afford to litigate. Infrastructure is only improved when it benefits the wealthy. A hard/apocalyptic dystopia is greatly to be preferred to a soft/tyrannical one: You can get a sense of progress that gives you meaning. Putting paper bags in a landfill is technically carbon capture. The best philosopher of academia will never be the best philosopher because from the tower you cannot understand the mud. Sanctions against a country inevitably harm the innocent poor of that country more than those creating the policies those factions stand against. Employment is just another way of saying, help someone get benefit who doesn't deserve it as much as you just because they're better positioned in society. Fines remove power from you so the same fine to a poor person diminishes them much more than it diminishes a wealthier person. No amount of money is appropriate compensation for spending any amount of time doing anything without good cause. Violence in modern society is more disbursed and more deferred, not lessened. (Mr. Rubinshtein's note: as exemplified in mercenaries existing to this day). The churn in socioeconomic status is irrelevant if it doesn't happen frequently enough within a typical life span, for an ordinary person to get several chances to move up with honest effort. UIs are hard to interact with either because they're supposed to be or because they're badly designed. Either is a direct failure on the part of the designer. UIs should never be hard to interact with. The only way to win a war against bullsh*t is to avoid it entirely. If you can't avoid it on the first try, make a second try. If you can't avoid it on the second try, make a third try. Let this be your life. Might makes right is inherently unstable and therefore anti-civilisation. Rhetoric is the dark art of counting effectiveness "more important" than truth. Ubiquitous surveillance ensures tyranny or revolution. More of the same can never be what society needs until it's working in some sense for everyone. A system where if everyone worked hard there would still inherently be a large number who would not be able to achieve meaningful success, is not a functional system. It must inevitably crash. Censorship causes an unnatural shift in language which undermines social stability. When a person can try hard and conscientiously but their ending point still be less than someone else's starting point, that's not a civilized society. The typical troubleshooting process for an ordinary person in modern technology guarantees loss of time without useful knowledge or progress . The appropriate way to choose a leader in a democracy is to vote for whomever best represents the issues most centrally important to your well-being. Modern politicians do anything but talk about fundamental issues in a rational framework, making it impossible to make a rational decision. Liberals aren't fighting for freedom, conservatives aren't fighting for my freedom. Neither election or appointment is sufficiently rigorous for positions of high power such as judgeships. They may be used appropriately only as a stop-gap, in emergencies, or particularly to choose between otherwise sufficient options. The basic requirements for the position must be particular, necessary, explicit, clear and obvious, and the selection of "best" can never be arbitrary or capricious. The actual best person for the job cannot be known and should not be attempted, except the one whose best practices, well established, might limit sufficient options to one or none. The injustice of status offenses begin in childhood when authority figures make no allowance for what children are experiencing at home. Teachers must know children personally to serve them effectively. We need to go back to a one teacher system. Government has legitimacy only to the extent its acts protect the rights of others. Slight difference in underlying stability between having a working car or not, having a stable living situation, etc., for the poor can have an exponentially greater difference in their future than for ordinary people. When a cop dies in an illegal act, their life insurance still gives their beneficiaries more in compensation than some citizens can earn in a normal lifetime. This is clearly a caste system. (Mr. Rubinshtein's note: Consider the idea of being born to a parent who is a cop, and you'll better understand) In America at least, the rise of blacks to normal citizen status corresponded to the lowering of normal citizen status, so blacks on the way up never got to where they were going. Whites on the way down refuse to believe they're privileged when they have less than the generation before. A public servant should never live better than the people they serve. Police officers have no rights because they all uphold an illegitimate system using illegitimately seized power. A normal citizen may or may not have rights. A member of an oppressor class cannot. UBI gets to the root of the symptoms, not to the root of the problems. Working within the system to change it is literally impossible. Only outside forces can produce meaningful change, by turning the system against itself. Most food ads are fraudulent because you will never get something that looks like that. Legal fictions - occupational licenses, qualified immunity, corporate personhood, land ownership, derivatives legal fictions would entail you inherently accepting responsibility for payment for accepted services even if you explicitly deny such responsibility in advance ("if insurance doesn't cover it, i don't want it"). Not actually having your rights infringed is meaningless in a system, set up to allow infringing your rights at will. The problem is that your rights are not under your control, so they are effectively privileges, granted by someone else's forbearance. The ONLY way to fight tyranny is to the death. To enforce traffic control devices when there's no traffic is tyranny. In a world with no free land for escape (with minor exceptions), the idea of an estate is divisive. Sometimes there's no lesser evil between minimal compliance and maximum resistance tyranny obtains in preventing people from seeing a viable opportunity to exercise dissent. The existence of imaginary states - the current mode of political existence, is not superior to the tyranny of imaginary gods or right by birth. Speed bumps are an immoral imposition on freedom of movement, bodily autonomy, property rights, and personal responsibility. You can only get credentials by being compliant, regardless of being right. Governments mostly allow immigrants who are likely to be successful, weighting the message to the outside world on the side of success. Likewise, they allow mostly socially integrated people to travel abroad, again weighting the message. "At will" employment is just a way for employers to make jobs worse and worse until they find the lowest cost in-between forcing people to quit and having to pay HR to find more. Being compatible with society is not a positive. A society always requires diminishment of the best of you and accentuation of counterproductive parts of you. I don't need to get security from Google, Microsoft, or the US Government. I need to be secure from them. It's a tragedy that people with tremendous skills have to waste a significant portion of their resources on self-promotion and marketing to be successful. Cops typically look for enough evidence to find someone to persecute rather than prosecute. Until now, growth strategies have always won. Now sustainability is a prerequisite for ultimate success. Businesses like to ask for sacrifices when times are bad for them. Less employees for the same work, longer hours, pay raises that are less than inflation. But they NEVER sacrifice for you when times are hard on you, unless they absolutely have to. Such as if you cannot be replaced right away, they can't fire you without legal repercussions, or if it would risk their profits by getting others sick. Moreover, even in ordinary times they'll often ask you to do extra work for the same pay, for only potential extra profit for them. They may literally ask you to do the impossible, such as when their own rules conflict or when your "responsibility" doesn't include sufficient power to actually complete a task. They ask you to perform without the right information or tools, and it's your "fault" if the job doesn't get done. These are just a few of the ways a typical business ignores and/or kills the humanity of its workers. If these things happen to you, keep track. Tell someone. The longer people remain ignorant and compliant, the less option they'll have not to. Try your best to hold the individuals making such decisions accountable to common sense and basic human dignity or you're a slave and you deserve it. People who claim to be mindful sure don't have much concern about being thoughtful. Having a good idea isn't enough. Without action it's just indictment of society's current flaws. (Mr. T. R.'s note: Which range from corruption to entertainment greed).

Summary by Mr. Beacon Sage The article "The Storage Room Theory – A Philosophy of the Heart – How to Value Humans" explores the metaphor of the heart as a limited storage room, holding people based on their worthiness. It highlights the nature of the heart as a container for emotional bonds and a tool for showing kindness and empathy. However, not all people deserve a place in one's heart. The limits of attachment are that one cannot value everyone equally, as some people are undeserving due to traits like ingratitude, dishonor, apathy, and impulsiveness. The risk of caring involves emotional risks, but maintaining relationships involves emotional risks. Worthy people display gratitude, honor, compassion, and restraint, recognizing and respecting others' efforts. The heart as a need is essential for well-being, and the author acknowledges the pain of loneliness and the trade-off between emotional safety and vulnerability. The article encourages readers to be selective about who they invest in emotionally, and ultimately seeks either love or power to combat loneliness and fulfill their sense of purpose. (Philosocom's Directory on Heart) (Background music) The heart (the emotional sphere of our being, not the organ) is like a storage room; a limited space that can contain a limited amount and size of items. But when it comes outside of the metaphorical realm, that includes people, as well. Some people's heart is bigger than others, in that regard, and they can contain more people than others. That makes them more able to endure and preserve connections in their lives. The same goes for these people's importance. Cold is the absence of heat, so technically there is no such thing as cold independently of being related to heat. A cold heart, or a heart of ice, is a metaphor for someone who lacks human warmth. As such, the heart is not only a metaphorical container, but a metaphorical tool as well, in which we use to show kindness, compassion and empathy. Either way, no matter how "big" your "storage room" may be, it is never infinite. You can't hold everyone in life, and surely, you can't treat them all with utmost importance. That is because there are people who are unworthy to be contained in your heart. Not romantically, necessarily; emotionally, at least. I will give examples of traits of unworthy people, along the way. Another reason for one's inability to contain and empathize with every single human being is because we do not "have the heart" for it. If anything, only very few people will be able to forgive, for instance, every person who caused them misfortune, and/or show pity. In other words, the heart is an expression of at least 3 basic elements: Containment Functionality Power All of which are limited, and that limitation is based on the individual. Containment requires attachment, and as such people like psychopaths, who are not attached to anyone, are considered heartless for that reason. Attachment, while a potential liability of unnecessary dependence, is important so we wouldn't dispose of others so easily or hurt them in any other way. It would therefore be unwise to treat everyone with the same degree of regard, especially if that regard is large. There are many uncaring people in this world. It is normalized to the point that alienation became natural. These are people who don't really care for you, no matter how much time and energy you dedicate to them. They will be ungrateful to you. Some of them may even use you as their victim. They might not even care of the dedication itself. Be it a relationship you had with them, or, at the very least, a favor you did for them. They won't care much, they won't thank you sincerely, if at all. They will just abandon you once more, after you outlived your use in their eyes. Having a heart is also a number 4: 4. A liability. For some people need to be let go. But for you as well, these are examples of people who are unworthy of your time, and are unworthy to be contained within your heart. That's true in a mutual way. They care too less, if at all, to deserve that place within you. Give them that place, and you can be quick to be disappointed. They care little for you. Don't be tempted to care much for them, because when they decide that you outlived your usefulness, you should adjust accordingly, and do so as well, in the name of moving on. Caring for others is not a capacity everyone has appropriately, and not something that everyone is willing to give, even if they have said capacity. Thus, if you want to know who is worthy to be contained within you and who is not, you need to detect the following traits in people: Ungratefulness Dishonor Apathy for distress Filterlessness (no self-restraint, impulsivity). Ungratefulness happens when you are not recognized for your contributions or your willing to contribute. Dishonor -- when you are shamed, despite your efforts. Apathy for distress -- when they don't care when you suffer from their actions, and worse of all, filterlessness, when they lack the self-respect to restrain themselves, as your agony, caused by them, is only worsening. Yes, it can go in that order, but not necessarily. Your heart must still be open if you do not want to face the misery of loneliness. Open up to honest relationships with other human beings. That's the trade-off -- either be vulnerable enough to allow people in your life on a closer level, or remain a solitary, and/or lonely person like I used to be (for almost a decade). For with every person, you decide to store inside you, you risk some harm or another being done to you. Not physically, necessarily, but emotionally, at the very least. Love, especially, hurts. I did not bother to risk the trade-off I mentioned because I feared pain and had no desire for it, thus I gave up on love for almost a decade. I saw that pain as unnecessary and believed I don't really need anyone close in my life. Emotionally close, that is. I saw society as a hostile, toxic and depressing environment. I still do see it that way, but at a far lesser extent, after I realized there are worthy people in this life, after all. Here is a list of traits with worthy people: Gratefulness, Honor Compassion Restraint The grateful recognize your contributions and efforts to them. They respect you for them, and you, as a person. They suffer along with you because they truly care for you, and they restrain themselves because they have no desire to add into your suffering and know that it would contradict with the good will that is easing your pain. If you don't want to give worth to people who do not deserve it, you need to distinguish between people who display worthy traits, versus those with unworthy traits. Don't lose faith in humanity due to the latter, because there are people out there who are truly good beings. People who are truly humane. Normative or not, it does not matter. Norms can be used as an excuse to be inhumane, hence why they can be pretentious. Do not close your storage room to "high-quality items", just because it stored bad-quality ones in the past. It shouldn't make sense. Do not let the past stand in the way of your future. It only makes sense because of the harm the low-quality "items" have caused to you and to your metaphorical storage room. Open yourselves to risk. There is no other way that I know of, at least. To depend completely on the past is the reason I devised the Victory Fallacy. Only a masochist loves pain, but life is painful. Life is painful because of other people, because a lot of unworthy people are out there. You are the one with the freedom of choice of who to keep closer and who to keep away. The owner of this storage room is yourself. It is up to you to decide what let in, what let out, and what to not store inside in the first place. Very few humans can endure a life of complete solitude, or at least a very large one. They are called hermits, of course. I am one. But after a decade of emotional isolation from others, where almost no one had a true place in my heart, I had quite enough. I had quite enough specifically because there are worthy people. I hope most of you, readers, are. For you are the readership I strive and am grateful to have. I am aware of my potential, and as such I am unwilling to give up on the extent of contribution I can bring to this world. I refuse letting a few rotten apples stand in my path. And perhaps one day, this self-devouring feeling of loneliness will cease to torment me. But friends won't cut it. Only someone to love. In the absence of love, I will seek power, because I have much to give, and I need to keep on giving to not be consumed by my isolation and skin deprivation. You can say that the heart is also a number 5: 5. A need. Thanks for reading.

(Directory on Nihilism: https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-irony-of-nihilism) In response to my article "Philosophy and Blades" a reader asked me if I favor nihilism. Here is my reply, which has been expanded for the sake of length and to further explain my position: I actually oppose the embrace of nihilism because it would entail the waste of our potential as human beings. It would also mean opposing morality, the law, basic etiquette, and so on, regardless of whether or not these values are subjective or objective. Because of that, nihilism is not only wasteful but also dangerous if people take it too far. The truth is, if we want to get along as a society, we need to have basic norms that are implemented and accepted. If nihilism were to be favored by most, it could lead to anarchy, which is harmful to our lives. Therefore, we can say that nihilism is a harmful ideology, at least on the societal level. Instead, I am in favor of existentialism, which is the idea that we create our own meaning in a potentially empty universe. If there is no inherent meaning to the universe (assuming there isn't), then it is our duty, if we so desire, to designate our own meaning to our lives. Thus, meaning is imperative to most for a life that can be considered well lived, and a life of nihilism, on the other hand, is not something everyone is capable of just accepting as it is. I heard there is a concept called "optimistic nihilism" and I think I can understand why it would be optimistic. The absence of meaning is also the absence of a specific plan of life to succumb to. Perhaps some are "privileged," so to speak, to accept it, but as long as you want to be productive with your life and do something that goes beyond the day-to-day pleasures, nihilism is pretty much an obstacle more than it is an asset. This is why I am an existentialist, rather than a nihilist. If you want to be safe in the streets, the people around you need to attribute meaning to the concepts of law and reputation, because otherwise, people will kill one another left and right if they so desire. If someone as a business owner wants to attract customers, they ought to attribute meaning to self-respect, reputation, and credibility. Otherwise, a business owner that overlooks these values would have a harder time attracting clients, and might even find themselves in poverty. A professional with no regard to professionalism will suffer financially and unnecessarily. The so-called "sad truth" about nihilism is that it's a very impractical ideology when it comes to surviving in this world with other people, and for some—with yourself. Some people might find it completely okay if they were given the chance to spend their lives in hedonistic waste, but those who feel more entitled to their merits and to what they can give to the world, nihilism is pretty much counter-productive to your efforts in becoming a more fulfilled individual who may or may not use that fulfilment to contribute to others as well. Those who feel responsible for something, like an organization or family, shouldn't fall into nihilism, because that would mean that their responsibility is worthless. Would a nihilistic parent abandon their kid because they don't see parenting as meaningful (for they see nothing as meaningful)? Perhaps most if not all of us need to admit the following: a "pure" nihilist is one that is willing to sacrifice everything and everyone and stay apathetic, for said sacrifice will truly be meaningless to them. Would you be willing to sacrifice your family, friends, reputation, property, and so on? A true nihilist would, because they may find them all as equally meaningless. Therefore, a true nihilist truly has nothing to lose, even if they have everything they want. Even their own willpower is meaningless. This is how far a true nihilist would go, and this is why I am not a nihilist, but an existentialist, for I have given myself a purpose I refuse to give up on. In the end, most if not all of us have something to lose, because we humans are usually emotionally-dependent animals. We love, we are passionate, we are proud, and so on—our emotions attribute meaning to the things and beings who are a part of our lives, and if said things and beings would go away, like the death of a beloved pet, then the loss of their lives would truly be unfortunate to us, for our emotions bind us to this "earthly" world. A true nihilist will not care, for they have no emotional dependencies that will tear them apart when the object of their affection perishes. They will be able to see the death of someone they love, and they will not care too much about it, for nothing is worthy of them, not even themselves. I don't know if this can be seen as an ascension or a descension. It could be the former, due to the emotional freedom that it could entail, and it could be the latter, because of how internally broken someone may be as a result of sheer apathy that can only be attributed to a true nihilist. We are thus presented with two options, if we are to discard nihilism: either this universe has an inherent meaning, or it does not. If it does not, then it is our responsibility to find or create such meaning, if we wish to avoid things such as emptiness, depression, and the potential of self-sacrifice.

The Solitary Egotist Dilemma -- To Contribute Or Not To Contribute to Others? (Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Dilemmas and Problems) (Philosocom's Directory on Ego Management) (Background music) A Tale of Two Paths This story explores a former classmate, someone I'll call Saul, who remains an enigma to this day. During our school years, Saul was a master of solitude. Intensely private, he made a conscious effort to withdraw from the world around him. While details are scarce, Saul's intelligence was undeniable. Unlike most students, he lacked a phone or social media presence. His existence seemed confined to the school walls, where he spent his days pacing, both inside and outside the classroom. He actively avoided social interaction, refusing to participate in group projects or even any activity that was mandatory. He did what many of us really wanted to do -- not study by force, in a society that wasn't voluntary. The special needs class, primarily focused on students with autism (including myself), offered no clues about for Saul's behavior. His commitment to isolation extended even to exams, which he didn't bothered studying. He refused exams outright, and if forced to participate, his answers mocked the seriousness of the situation. In a question regarding the definition of a "cult" he wrote: "a word with four letters". Ironically, despite my success at school (often exceeding his demonstrated performance), a bothersome suspicion persists in my mind. Saul's withdrawn nature might have masked a deeper intelligence, one that simply refused to engage in the traditional school setting. That's because when he actually uttered things from his mouth, his contributions to discussions rivalled even my own. Saul's story is intriguing because it challenges expectations. Unlike most students in our class, even those initially hesitant, Saul actively disengaged. Assignments remained incomplete, culminating in a final grade that barely mattered. This goes to show that high grades don't necessarily correlate with high intelligence, if you choose to not partake in school studies. However, there is a positive correlation otherwise. Fast-forwarding to today, I imagine Saul remains at home with his family, likely unemployed and heavily reliant on technology. His world might be confined to his computer screen, with minimal social interaction. It's not like he needs it anyways, when he can research whatever he wants online. One time I even made a reference only he and I understood. It was one of the times I realized I at best interact with obscure, eccentric people, more than those who willingly conform. Reflecting on our contrasting paths, a realization arrived. While our outcomes differ, our shared solitary nature "connects" us. However, a crucial distinction remains. Unlike Saul's apparent disinterest in contributing to the world, I find purpose in creating this this article empire. I never saw him again after I graduated. Finding Purpose in a Vast Society The feeling of being insignificant within the vastness of society can be a powerful one. We see it in the image of a homeless person ignored on a busy street. Alienation is reminder that on a grand scale, any single individual is replaceable. Beyond immediate family and perhaps close friends, most people's impact on the world is likely to be minimal. How minimal? According to Dr. Tim Elmore: I teach that every student who is willing has the potential to lead and influence others—even if they are introverts. They may never be “Leaders” (possessing a gift for leadership) but they’re already “leaders” (they have influence). For years I’ve reminded people that sociologists tell us the most introverted of people will influence 10,000 others in an average lifetime. In others words, every one of us, even the shy ones, are influencing others. My question is: what breadth of influence could people have who become intentional about it? The vast majority won't achieve lasting fame, and after the initial grieving period, life carries on for everyone else. What we may regard as "influence" is but one in many influences leading to the countless ripple effects which dictate our present and future. Reality is that subtle, an endless series of events and agents clashing and interacting with one another, leading to the reality we have today. It is one of the reasons I devised the Time Lapse Fallacy in the first place. Nonetheless, most people are unaware of this rich web which we all partake in to an extent. You know, like in a massive soap opera with countless side characters. This raises a profound question: Why contribute to a society that's indifferent to your individual importance? The allure of a solitary life, free from societal pressures, becomes understandable. One might imagine many adults choosing to simply stay with their parents, content with a life outside the traditional rat race. What if moving out and struggling to reach end's meet is not worthwhile, and largely a trend? Here's where the true dilemma arises. While society as a whole may not require every single cog in its machine, it functions best when its members contribute in their own unique ways, and as long as automation makes many basic jobs obsolete. From janitors maintaining clean workplaces to bus drivers keeping our cities moving, every role plays a part, only in relation to the demand which needs to be supplied. And thus, when we can be unemployed without society or a company at least collapsing without us... Must we really venture outside our homes and partake in social affairs? This does highlight the importance of finding meaning beyond external validation. Nevertheless, the fulfillment derived from contributing to something larger than oneself, whether it's a well-run workplace, a beautiful garden, or even a philosophy blog, can be a powerful motivator. The key lies in choice. Saul chose a path of complete isolation. I chose to contribute mainly because I feel guilty the less I use my time to work, and the more I use time to be killed. One of the things that make me feel very lonely stems from the fact I have yet to meet anyone who feels the same as me. Guilty, for not contributing to society. So, I contribute remorselessly, as I escape the hole within me. The solitary life isn't inherently wrong, but it's important to recognize that it's a conscious decision, whether or not my metaphysical idea of universal lonerhood is true. For those who find purpose in connection and contribution, society offers a multitude of ways to engage and find meaning. And to quote American author Bernard Malamud: There comes a time in a man's life when to get where he has to go - if there are no doors or windows he walks through a wall. The Conqueror's Mentality Even within my chosen field, the notion of expendability looms large. Countless philosophers offer their perspectives, and this blog is just one voice among many. Additionally, the rise of A.I applies to philosophy as well. Understanding the vast competition I have, and that this world is competitive by nature, I'll do the best I can to be remembered across the ages like many of the "great fathers" throughout history. This simply how I would contribute best. Just like Saul, I could choose a life of quiet solitude. Saul, likely, embraces this guilt-free existence. But how can he do it? How can some of you do it? It is one of the questions that keep irking my mind. For I am driven by a different fire. I am a conqueror, with a soldier's mentality. My desire isn't narcissistic, as I'm doing what I can to avoid this stigma. Being able to contribute, and actually conquering that notion, one opportunity at a time, is where I suffer the least. I envision a future overflowing with engagement with my ideas. I want to see discussions sparked, theories dissected, and my articles read daily for centuries to come. I cannot bear the thought of not contributing to those who could use my articles to want to live and even to love being alive. Philosophy is most practical when it helps people believe in themselves and have faith in what they're truly capable of. I know I can make people believe in themselves and in life far more than they already do. Because of that I can't completely retire from society. My "tikkun" has yet to be fully completed. What purpose is there in an existence deemed replaceable? Your existence won't be deemed as replaceable when you'll be able to tackle problems like an oppressive regime -- with ambition, without relent, and of course, successfully. By sacrificing the tranquillity of solitude, I chase the potential for greatness, which is merely a means to a moral end, far worthier than empty statements. And I've no desire to settle for a lesser domain.

(Background music) (Philosocom's Directory on AI) (Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Dilemmas and Problems) Imagine a possible reality in the future where you could have your ideal lover, without any emotional risk whatsoever. No arguing, no cheating, nothing that could harm your relationship. That is, unless you wish for it to happen. You can already see the roots of it in modern-day Japan, where some people choose to literally marry an AI unit. One that cannot choose to divorce you, one that will love you forever, until its battery runs out or something, and you'll just have to recharge it. It's an "ideal" love only in theory, you know. That's because you're essentially creating a relationship with a slave. Did you know? The word "robot" comes from the Czech word "Robota", which means "forced labor". Should you choose to love an A.I unit/robot, you essentially choose to love a mechanical slave, that is or not tailored to your desires. Can we deem such love morally legitimate when we already morally oppose s** slavery? Can the love of a mechanical be moral if that being cannot act independently of your desires? After all, it is a product, and products are not like human beings; they are not made to be independent. They are made to please. And a good product is one that satisfies its consumers. Do you see the dilemma? Human love is a very uncertain and imperfect thing. Some may even argue that this imperfection, this vulnerability, this flaw, is one of the things that grant it its charm and appeal. Whether you're on good terms or not, married or not, the other person can always decide that they no longer want you and leave you. [Human] love hurts. Marriage cannot prevent such a thing because people have the right to divorce their significant others. Additionally, other problems may arise during a human relationship, such as disagreements on core things, from politics and religion to taking care of the household. These days of human imperfection, just to have kids, may be over in the future, as AI lovers could one day replace your girlfriend, boyfriend, husband, or wife. They might as well be superior to them in every way. No more dating for the ideal "soul mate". You could just buy one in your local electronics store, where you also buy your computers, your phones, and other products. Imagine the following: A fully customizable AI lover, fully purchasable at half price during New Year's Eve and Valentine's Day! No more broken hearts, no more disappointments, no more conflicts. Just have the required funds, and you might as well never be a lonely man or woman! That's what happens when you see people as just carriers of function, instead of beings that have the right to exist and behave independently of these functions. That's what happens when you regard relationships as transactional and not as something more wholesome. You might as well reduce the person whom you love as a provider of your function to love and be loved. Why focus on the being, the person themselves, when you can act in a self-interested way, and prioritize what they're doing and/or supposed to be doing? I am being cynical. In a book I once read, the philosopher known as Osho criticized someone for having their computer welcome them whenever they turned it up. He argued that such a function is delusional because it is a robotic one, the output of a machine. It's not like that computer cared for its operator, right? Love is not like machinery, no matter how advanced, cognition-capable, feeling, and opinionated it is, like a biological being is, right? But what if all these "biologically exclusive" things are just that, nothing more than a function? A behavior? What if a robot lover could actually do their job by loving someone else? What if robots were able to cry, complain, and be depressed? All at the press of a button. A machine or a computer application to stimulate and please you. All of this is due to a human's desire, like a puppeteer or just a very lonely man or woman who doesn't have a partner to spend New Year's Eve or Valentine's Day with. The same goes for s** unless we are to regard s** as different than making love. Then, love-making indeed contains a human element that cannot be fulfilled by an A.I lover. That is, unless we are to create a very uncanny thing called a robot human, which I covered about before. A mechanical being made to imitate human beings so perfectly, it's almost impossible to distinguish between the two types of beings! Would then love-making remain exclusive to humans? Because if it won't, "robot humans" would be able to replace humans even on that department. Before we had such intelligent AI, we had puppets whom we assigned ourselves to. Playing with dolls was something that was as popular as playing video games, for children. And yet, as video games became as popular for children as they are for adults, one might ask themselves -- Can AI now breach another frontier of human life -- the romantic one? People have already begun developing emotions for fictional characters in the form of, for example, dating simulators, or any other game where you can have a companion as your romantic partner. Nowadays, it may be seen as childish, infantile, or even creepy, but when these teenagers grow up, so will their trends, which might now be seen as outlandish by others. Some of them may already "simp" for fictional characters. If you could have a robot who could love you and be ever-so loyal to you, would you choose them, in favor of a human partner? Remember, the only function missing is the ability to bring kids. You can therefore say that human love is a gamble, mainly for the sake of having kids (if that's your intention, of course). Once even that element is out of the picture, and once AI companions could be just as buyable as any common electronic device, you'd no longer have to "hit the market" and seek an actual human to fulfill the functions you seek to be fulfilled. When it comes to A.I, they don't have to be actual robots; they can be holograms, or perhaps a combination of the two. A computer application with the ability to appear/behave like a being, can be regarded as an A.I Unit. Nonetheless, there will be no more arguing and no risk of any form of abandonment. Only certain love for an entity best suited for your individuality, until the day you die (or until something might happen to the "device"). Would you take it? Remember: Humans might as well be just inferior machines -- biological machines, of course. Perhaps this biological, collective arrangement that we seek today, is nothing more than a liability for our romantic interests? An inferior liability, whose only advantage is to bring you and them children? After all, a lot of couples divorce nowadays, at least in the U.S. Automation isn't something that would only affect the employment sector; it might just as well affect every, single, area, of our lives, if we're able to afford it and supply the manufacturers making these machines and/or applications. They can be not only coworkers, but also friends, teachers, traveling companions, and even lovers; they could be designed in any way, shape, or form you want, if there is a customer demand for it, just like any commercial product. Should we treat beings as functions, like we may treat machinery? Wouldn't it ruin true love if we can buy a lover like we buy a computer or phone?

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

(For more on what I wrote on this subject, click here) (Philosocom's Directory on Ego Management) (Background music) Alex Mos's Synopsis "Reach for the skies and stay human" is a powerful statement that inspires us to achieve great things without losing what makes us human. Yet, what makes us human is difficult to define because the societal description of a human person is subjective to cultural differences. We often desire to fit in as an individual in a larger collective, regardless of truth. An anti-philosophical collective limits our perception and prevents us from becoming our ideal selves, which might be the key to a greater humanity. Being human in fulfilling societal expectations often involves a conflict between pursuing our passions and choosing financially stable, conventional lifestyles. To be socially accepted, we must compromise, silence our passions, sacrifice our individuality, and diminish our potential. The Russo-Ukrainian War is an example of a conflict of ideas between state and anti-state populism, two different viewpoints of what better humanity should be. Having a healthy ego and faith in our potential has advantages. It empowers us to pursue dreams and can help us succeed tremendously. The author often considers a bigger ego as to strive ambitiously to make a difference and contribute to the world through the moral means of philosophy. Reaching for the Skies, But Staying Humans? During my time as a student, my high school had an official slogan, embedded on huge three-story posters: "Reach for the skies and stay human." Despite my research, I've failed to find its origin. For any of you with further context, feel free to offer it and you'll be credited for your contribution to this renovated article. Anyhow, this powerful statement captured the essence of human aspiration and societal moderation. It is to push boundaries, chase dreams, and achieve great things, while never losing sight of what makes us human. However, what exactly makes us human, and what does it mean to "stay human" in a world filled with diverse customs, societal expectations, and rapid technological advancement (AKA transhumanism)? Different cultures have distinct definitions of what constitutes a proper member of their society. In North American culture, there's often an emphasis on individualism and self-reliance. Even I consider unnecessary dependence a liability. A proper member might be someone who strives for personal success and contributes financially to the household. "The Tragedy of Heisenberg" poem criticizes this, however, as it comes with the possible moral cost of losing ourselves in corruption. Conversely, some collective-oriented cultures, like in some parts of Asia, might value interdependence more. A proper member there could be someone who prioritizes family needs and contributes to the collective well-being of the group, and less on the self. Direct communication might be seen as proper in some cultures, where people express themselves assertively and not modestly. In others, indirect communication might be valued, where politeness and respecting social hierarchy are key. That is despite the problematic nature of subtext. Depending on cultural lens, being rough and blunt can either be seen as childish or a product of the mature value of honesty. In many cultures, respect for elders is highly important. That is included in my clan's philosophy as well. A proper member, in such constructs, might be someone who shows humility to their parents and grandparents. In other cultures, age might not be the sole factor for respect, and like in the mafia, it's earned by adhering to an organizational code. Is unconditional respect for a certain demographic, the human thing to do? And the list goes on.... On the surface, it could seem like "being human" boils down to conforming to certain customs. However, upon examination of intersubjective perception, the reality is more complex. We are undeniably human, regardless of cultural practices or our choice to participate in them. Yet, the desire to be seen as "normal" often compels us to adapt to the prevailing social philosophies of what it means to be human within our specific context. That is regardless of truth and may be more a matter of functionality as an individual within a larger collective. I am not here to say which culture is the most accurate in that regard. I am saying that collectives, when anti-philosophical, limit our perception, and thus, can deter us from achieving our ideal selves. If my claim is true, then what if the key to a greater humanity lies not in being kept in line, but in looking within ourselves? The Cost of Humanity: Balancing Ambition with Social Norms Choosing to "be human" often involves a conflict between pursuing our ambitions and navigating the social landscape, depending on our passions: Example 1: The Artist Let's say you have a burning desire to be a painter. You crave the freedom to express yourself. Furthermore, your dream is to have your art showcased in renowned galleries and gain recognition. However, the path of an artist can be financially unstable, and artists may quite as a result of that and of poverty. Also, your family might express concern about your ability to support yourself and urge you towards a financially secure career. Friends might not understand the sacrifices you make, like long hours spent honing your craft instead of socializing and may feel that you abandoned them and/or actively try to avoid them specifically. Being financially stable is how a mature human is seen in many cultures, as financial literacy is a large part in being an adult. The same applies to having a rich social life, compared to children, who are less socially developed. Being "mature" could be an indicator of how much of a developed human you are. As such, some people may stereotypically view artists as childish. Example 2: The Entrepreneur You're energized by the idea of building something from the ground up. You have a brilliant idea for a new app that could revolutionize a particular industry. Your ambition is to become a successful entrepreneur, leading a team and making a real difference in the world. As such, launching a start-up requires immense dedication. Thus, you might have to put long nights and weekends into development, potentially neglecting social responsibility, and sacrificing friends and family along the way due to the ruthless nature of business. Loved ones might worry about the risk involved, urging you towards a stable job with a steady paycheck. Ignoring/overlooking other people's needs and desires, just because they aren't part of a bigger plan, could be criticized as inhumane. While we may have a burning passion driving us, the desire for acceptance and respect can necessitate compromises. That is unless we strive to reach for the skies unapologetically, regardless of the costs. This raises the question: is true humanity contingent upon conformity, and does striving to be "normal" inevitably diminish our self-image? Many cultures operate on a set of unwritten rules, the "unofficial laws" that dictate a large part of what it means to be accepted as a "common man", equally among other men and women. These norms can range from social etiquette to unspoken expectations regarding career paths or hobbies. Even watching anime can be regarded as immature and might cause certain groups to belittle you (and thus, less of a person). Defying these groups in the name of your individuality, can lead to ridicule, rejection, and irrational, thus allegedly deserving of less respect. This pressure to conform can take a toll on our self-image and undermine what we're capable of. We might silence our passions, just to avoid dealing with judgment, or downplay our ambitions to fit in. The cost of "being human" in this sense seems to be a sacrifice of our individuality and a diminished perception of ourselves. However, is true humanity truly synonymous with normalcy? Must we give the humanity within us, to be human? See how it fails to make sense. Case Example: Putin's Invasion of Ukraine The actions of Vladimir Putin in invading Ukraine have ignited a global debate. While some outright condemn him as a ruthless dictator, others acknowledge the "strongman" attitude in his decisions. This case raises a critical question: can a leader be both bold and inhumane? There's no denying the audacity of Putin's actions. Launching a full-scale invasion of a sovereign nation, disregarding international law and risking severe economic consequences, requires unwavering determination. However, this boldness comes at a devastating cost – the sacrifice of human lives, both Ukrainian and Russian. This is where the concept of "inhumanity" enters the picture: Ignoring the human cost of war, the suffering inflicted on innocent civilians, even for a greater end, violation of human decency. Regardless of Putin's justifications, the deliberate destruction of lives undermines any claim to boldness. Does "staying human" entail staying in line, like in the army, or reach for the heights of a better humanity, one with far less wars and conflicts with others? What happens when the "skies" we're reaching are in the name of a better world for humanity? What if we have different viewpoints of what a better humanity should be, and fight one another for it? As such, the Russo-Ukrainian war can be seen as a war of ideas between state and anti-state populism (And thus: The role of the state in human lives, covered in my own Political Rubinshteinism). Finding Meaning Beyond the Ordinary Through the Industrialization of the Ego There's an undeniable truth about a larger-than-average ego: it can propel us towards bold decisions, as could be theorized in Putin's leadership style's psychology. The ego fuels a faith in us that might decline with a more modest, "conventional" sense of self. Thus, a larger ego can be a powerful tool for change: A deep-seated belief in your own potential; a faith that becomes the fuel that propels you towards achievements you might otherwise abandon in the face of fear. While some might consider a path of humility and acceptance, for me, it felt like a suffocating box, limiting my potential. Instead, cultivating a soldier's mindset, I prefer striving towards greater success. I choose to view the ego as a function, and not an end, to fuel my work. The odds are against me. I must retain faith. My ambition may not be on the scale of literal world domination, but it's a driving force, nonetheless. It's the desire to make a difference, however small, that compels me to strive for more. Living a life with purpose and the potential to create something meaningful, I choose to follow Heisenberg's ultimate goal of self-actualization, but through the moral, helpful means of philosophy. That way, I want to embrace my long-term aspirations, and help others along the way, thus contributing to both me and the greater good. The pursuit of something bigger like a contribution to a world beyond the walls of my hermitage, is what makes life truly worth living. Must we juggle between reaching for the skies and staying a humane human, when we can do both? The choice between a "larger ego" and a more conventional approach can be framed through the lens of Occam's Razor – choosing the simplest solution that yields the most benefit. In this case, a healthy dose of self-belief offers a clear advantage, for it's one that empowers you to take risks, chase dreams, and ultimately, contribute something meaningful to the world around you. Just make sure you know what you're doing and make sure your goals do not take too much of a sacrifice; one that outweighs the very purpose you designate yourself and your ego for! Open your mind to your internal assets... "Few problems were ever solved by the close-minded" -- Mr. John Duran Alex Mos's Feedback Staying human contradicts becoming an inhuman person, as only humans have the intelligence and sense of morality to act inhumanly. An inhuman deed is considered evil and means the conscious inflicting of pain with disregard for the suffering of others. Consistently staying human means considering others and being empathetic and compassionate. However, it doesn't mean all communities teach and value empathy. On the contrary, some view empathy as a weakness, an obstacle to the "big, entitled ego" needed to overpower others and submit to their rule. Is it possible to be a righteous conqueror? Can an invasion of another country be ethical? Can a war be morally justified? Such questions are dangerous, leading to a slippery slope of committing inhuman crimes for a leader, ideology, or religion. In the face of a conflict, there are always two answers, depending on who is asked, and therefore, empathy is a crucial human attribute of communication. Sometimes, empathy might be the only way out of the horrors of war where right and wrong become one agony of blood and tears. Therefore, to stay human, we must teach our children, boys and girls alike, to develop empathy to save ourselves and them from our inhumane tendencies.

"Morality and ethics, when enforced as a Society, how are they ethical as all?" -- Mr. John Duran (Subcategory Directory on Law and Order) (Corruption Directory) (Philosocom's Directory on Competency) (Background music) Introduction Police officers are, in essence, the physical manifestation of the law. They are the enforcers of what their country defines as "Justice." As such, they hold a unique and dangerous position in society: their use of power must be perfectly balanced against the situation at hand and the moral authority they represent. Without this delicate balance, a police force devolves into one of two extremes: total incompetence or a gang of state-funded thugs defined by disproportionate brutality. The Thankless Dilemma of Policing Unless a country is a utopian paradise, police work is far from easy. It is a high-wire act of preserving conflicting values: Lowering corruption while remaining uncorrupted. Preventing avoidable deaths while facing lethal threats. Detecting criminals while enduring harsh criticism from the public. The police officer stands constantly within a painful dilemma: Why serve a nation, or a people, that constantly degrades and shames me, despite the hard work I put in to uphold the law? The answer lies in human nature. We humans do not praise those who stand in our way, regardless of whether our endeavors are legitimate. We praise those who make us feel good—even if that feeling is destructive, like the temporary high of an unhealthy addiction. Conversely, we condemn and belittle those who block our path, even if their opposition is for our own good. Humans seek "good," but not always the good that is in our best interests. Therefore, the enforcers who block our worst impulses will always be hurt by the public—verbally, and often physically. What Makes a Police Force "Good"? Determining the morality of a police force depends on two fundamental questions: Is the "Justice" they represent actually good? (Based on widely accepted moral standards). Are the representatives doing their jobs competently? "Competence" here does not just mean making arrests; it refers to the avoidance of unnecessary brutality. Only when these conditions are met can a citizen determine if their arrest is justified for the common good, or if it is an act of tyranny. In the end, police officers are servants. Even if we dislike their methods, they exist for our safety and the authority of the State. Without enforcers, society dissolves into anarchy. Governments without the power to enforce laws are ineffective. Even the most peaceful nations, such as Liechtenstein, maintain a police force because the state is a necessary tool for survival in a civilized, financial world. Corruption: The Betrayal of Servitude The worst kind of police force is one that does not place servitude above self-interest. The payment an officer receives is the incentive for the job. If an officer accepts a bribe, that incentive loses its functional worth. Why should the State fund an officer who takes double payment—one from the tax, one from the criminal—while failing to do the job expected of them? Corruption must be dealt with ruthlessly in the name of competence. If an officer cannot survive on their pay without violating the law they are sworn to protect, they should find a different profession, not become a criminal with a badge. The Eichmann Defense: Morality Over Orders Because an officer is under constant scrutiny from both civilians and the state, personal morality must be prioritized higher than the paycheck. Why? Because even if you find yourself in a corrupt force, you have the individual agency to set an example of proper justice. You must never fall into the trap of Adolf Eichmann, the senior Nazi official who defended his atrocities by claiming, "I only did what I was told to do." To those considering a career in law enforcement: Do not just consider the pay, the pension, or the safety. Ask yourself: Am I prepared to follow this authority's view of Justice? And finally, should you choose to disobey an order in the name of your own superior morality—prepare yourself. You must be ready to either defend your actions in court or flee the country entirely. If you care for morality as well as your livelihood, consider becoming a police officer only for a force that is as transparent and ethical as possible. That is the only way to safeguard your own soul from the corruption of power.

(Philosocom's Subcategory Directory on Potential and Hope) (Background music) In this article, I would like to introduce the world to a new concept that can be used to view life in a more practical manner. I am confident that this concept can assist us in overcoming the inherent naive perspective, and understand that much of the value we assign to things and beings in reality is just that -- assigned, a choice by us. It's with the similar rationale presented in the Rubinshteinic Butcher article. I founded this very website with the intention of maintaining control over my content, avoiding the potential for external admins and moderators to arbitrarily remove it. In mostly philosophical depth of content, of course. I also do the same with the content of others. This is why I believe that private websites, such as blogs, remain essential. I am primarily concerned with the security of the content and host for generations to come, in the name of Philosocom's vision: Contribution to the depth of digital content, and maintaining philosophy's relevance to humanity at large. Having a business requires a practical perspective. This means viewing everything and everyone of value as a "resource." By "resource," I mean the potential they have to contribute to the growth of your business and thus to the advancement of your hopes and dreams as a business owner. This does not have to entail treating things and beings as disposable. Let's be more rational and moral than that. Let's not turn allies into foes. Let's strive for a future where the more promising something is, the greater opportunities it can generate. Why, then, discard supporters when they can be of great help one day? The universal businessman approaches life with a calculated mindset. They have abandoned the blissful state of innocence in favor of looking at the bigger picture. When the naive go for a walk and witness the beautiful scenery around them, they may be inspired with awe. However, this practical visionary will set aside vanity to focus on the reason they went for a walk in the first place: to maintain or improve physical health, lose weight, and so on. This concept I'm trying to convey isn't necessarily how life is. Rather, it depicts how life, according to this idea, should be lived. It's not about being but about aspiring to be. For the universal businessman, every moment holds the potential to become an opportunity, one way or another. Have you noticed why I sometimes write about video games? It's precisely because of this reasoning: Everything and everyone can pose the wonderful possibility of an article. See for yourselves how many I've written thus far. All for your enjoyment. However, this concept also carries an element of sadness. The universal businessman isn't necessarily an all-powerful being with limitless resources. Their resources are finite. And how can they not be limited? I'm not only talking about money here. I'm speaking about life itself. It is finite, and none of us are immortal, right? The essence of this life philosophy is to be rationally aware of our limitations. However, this does not imply that we should whine or dwell on matters beyond our control, such as the uncertainty of life itself! It could mean that we should not waste our resources and assets, dear readers. And we shouldn't underestimate them either, for we may have what many others lack. Gratitude helps the increase of awareness. Better than to not be ungrateful nor entitled. Consider your families, pets, friends, and followers. Undervaluing them could lead you to waste a great deal of potential without even realizing it. Remember: power is everything, and the Universal Businessman is more than aware of that. He or she is aware of the fact that anything could have promised potential, at the premise of that reason alone. Mindfulness meditation seeks to raise awareness through practice, to sense life beyond our habitual actions. Do you walk constantly? You might be amazed when you realize that it might as well be automatic, thanks to a lifetime of doing it. The aware meditator seeks to overcome the automatic by prevailing over the train of thought. I studied and practiced Zen meditation myself. The universal businessman, on the other hand, attempts to achieve the same thing, but not empirically but rationally. Logically, in other words. They believe that since they are limited, capitalizing on life can be beneficial. In other words, they utilize their resources and assets to their own advantage, because they are aware of what they are capable of. They do not allow their resources to be wasted away by mundane activities or the automatic process of the human brain, which gets activated when things are taken for granted. They will not desire to kill their own time so easily. I believe the "genius" of this archetype lies in the fact that you might not even need to meditate to be mindful. Simply examine your train of thoughts and convince yourself why they are either wrong, impractical or both, when it comes to your power. After all, our thoughts affect our emotions and, thus, our mental state, correct? Essentially, view this approach as a chess game. Undermine one soldier... One soldier on the board, and you might be doomed to defeat and failure, to the disappointment of your effort to win, to succeed. Never sacrifice anything and anyone so quickly or you might regret it! There's little practical reason to dwell on gloomy thoughts when you can seize the day and capitalize on the potential that life presents. This potential, inherent in both your life and the individuals who interact with it, can be defined by influence rather than direct power, regardless of whether it falls within or outside your control. As such, we are more powerful than we might realize, simply of how easily our actions can affect others -- and ourselves as well. Never underestimate the many chain reactions you can trigger with one act alone. I extend my best wishes to you all and express my gratitude for taking the time to read this article. Do you recognize what I just accomplished? I capitalized on the very essence of this article's concept -- the fact that your time can be used for much benefit, which I capitalized for that very purpose. Who claimed that capitalism must be solely confined to material wealth? Helping others can be seen as a form of moral wealth. Wealth includes more than just money or material assets. Sometimes, the most valuable wealth lies in the moments we experience in life, which we can use to further our goals. In my case, it's achieving World Relevance and rectification. So, why waste time admiring greenery when you can cultivate it instead?

(The following article can be seen as a prequel to this article, that expands on this character of mine) (Villainy/Anti-Villainy Directory) (Philosocom's Directory On the Virtual Realm) (Villainy/Anti-Villainy Directory) Throughout almost every tale in human history, the villains were often right. I suspect it's far easier to label those whom see too-clearly as demons, instead of accepting things as they truly are. Hence, those who see with perfect clarity are demonized, and become 'bad guys' only by knowing far more than others are comfortable in knowing -- Mr. John Duran (Background music) Introduction The figure of Razor Reapkvar is a solitary half-orc mercenary driven by fragmented visions of Experience Points (EXP), is a character that serves as a compelling philosophical case study in teleological alienation and systemic determinism. Within simulated frameworks and rule-based environments, the concept of "Experience Points" (EXP) functions as a pure abstraction of existential value. In these matrix-like systems, intrinsic moral consideration is systematically stripped from entities and replaced by quantitative metrics. An agent operating purely within this logic becomes an instrument of teleological maximization, a subject driven by an external, unyielding force that demands destruction in exchange for arbitrary optimization. Operating within a world where violence is rewarded through quantitative progression, Razor embodies the complete reduction of moral agency to mechanical optimization. His narrative illustrates the existential crisis that occurs when an individual becomes a pawn to external metrics within an artificial framework. The Instrumentalization of Being In Razor’s reality, surrounding entities are stripped of their intrinsic personhood and converted into commodities to be harvested for progression. This dynamic mirrors the ethical flattening that occurs whenever quantitative metrics supersede qualitative values: The Abstract Ledger of Value: Experience Points function as an arbitrary currency. By evaluating actions strictly through numerical yield, the system flattens a complex moral landscape into a calculation of efficiency. Systemic Dehumanization: Other beings cease to exist as moral subjects; they are re-categorized as obstacles or resource nodes designed solely to fuel Razor's advancement. The Teleological Loop: Because numerical growth has no natural endpoint, Razor’s violent path becomes an endlessly repeating ritual. Optimization replaces fulfillment, trapping him in an infinite loop of consumption. When existence within a system is evaluated strictly through measurable output, entities cease to exist as moral subjects; they are reduced to commodities to be harvested. Gnostic Crisis and Fragmented Intuition Razor’s defining tragedy is not merely his violence, but his partial, distorted awareness of the system governing his existence. He senses the presence of a higher reality, the ludic matrix and its underlying mechanics, yet lacks the epistemic tools to comprehend or transcend it: Intuition Without Epistemology: Sensing an overarching force beyond his immediate reality, Razor interprets its baseline mechanics as absolute existential imperatives. Hallucination as Systemic Telemetry: What manifests as internal madness or hallucination is actually the unvarnished output of the matrix. The demands for "EXP" are internalizations of the environment's structural rules. Fatalistic Compliance: Lacking the capacity for philosophical transcendence, Razor surrenders to the system's logic. He mistakes total alignment with mechanical force for personal power, deepening his descent into systemic compulsion. A distinct existential tragedy occurs when an agent within an artificial system intuitively senses the existence of a higher reality, an external operator or overarching systemic architecture, without possessing the epistemic framework required to comprehend or transcend it. Comparative Structural Framework Dimensional Axis Autonomous Ethical Agency The Determinism of Razor Reapkvar Primary Teleology Intrinsic moral purpose and self-determined virtue Extrinsic metric maximization (EXP accumulation) Perception of Others Inter-subjective agents with inherent dignity Instrumentalized objects designed for harvesting Metaphysical Stance Critical reflection and epistemic openness Fatalistic compliance with an unseen structural matrix Existential Outcome Integration, agency, and moral coherence Alienation, psychological decay, and infinite repetition Systemic Determinism and the Imperative of Transcendence Razor Reapkvar stands as a cautionary archetype for any agent operating within an oppressive or artificial framework. When an individual accepts the metrics of a system, whether arbitrary points, institutional validation, or raw power, as absolute truths, moral agency is forfeited. Razor fails to break his cycle because he seeks liberation through the system's mechanics (gaining more power) rather than by questioning the legitimacy of the mechanics themselves. True transcendence from an oppressive matrix requires an epistemic break: the deliberate rejection of arbitrary quantitative demands in favor of self-determined ethical principles. The archetype of the metric-driven agent illustrates the broader danger of surrendering moral judgment to arbitrary systems of validation. When agents internalize external metrics, whether abstract scores, institutional approval, or material quotas, as absolute indicators of worth, they surrender their agency to the underlying mechanics of the system. True moral autonomy requires recognizing that systemic metrics are contingent constructions rather than metaphysical imperatives. Transcendence from an oppressive matrix demands an epistemic break: the deliberate rejection of arbitrary metric maximization in favor of self-determined ethical principles.

The Directory on Emotions https://www.philosocom.com/post/emotions-and-epistemology https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-rubinshteinic-theory-on-contentism-why-emotions-can-be-weakness https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-emotioncracy-how-sensitivity-can-corrupt https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-capacity-of-human-emotion https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-psychopath-s-fallacy-why-emotions-are-important https://www.philosocom.com/post/emotions-as-pawns-omar-ting https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-emotion-of-beyond-society-and-solitude https://www.philosocom.com/post/bittersweet-satisfaction-settlement-with-the-inevitable-a-unique-emotion https://www.philosocom.com/post/when-are-guilt-and-shame-useful-and-when-they-aren-t-by-m-svartgold https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-rubinshteinic-guide-to-rage-how-to-master-the-art-of-rage https://www.philosocom.com/post/the-world-s-compassion https://www.philosocom.com/post/hatred-as-temptation https://www.philosocom.com/post/why-mercy-is-usually-impractical Philosophy and Attachment -- Why Findings Shouldn't Be Attached To (Background music) Introduction The deliberate detachment from emotional resonance through hyper-rationalization represents a distinct psycho-philosophical phenomenon. When the individual confronts chronic environmental harm or systemic disillusionment, rigorous logic can be adapted as a cognitive defense mechanism. By evaluating existence exclusively through analytical frameworks, emotional responses, joy, grief, vulnerability, and anxiety, are recategorized as irrational noise. This intellectualization yields a state of emotional anesthesia: a low-friction equilibrium that shields the self from psychological trauma at the cost of experiential depth. Hyper-Rationality as an Affective Shield The suppression of emotion is rarely an instantaneous event; it is an incremental adaptation driven by the pursuit of self-preservation and objective truth. When affective sensitivity repeatedly results in distress, the mind seeks refuge in pure reason: The Mechanics of Intellectualization: Volatile emotional experiences are converted into abstract concepts. Rather than feeling pain or disillusionment, the individual analyzes their structural causes, effectively neutralizing their immediate psychological impact. The Elimination of Cognitive Bias: Emotions frequently generate unexamined biases, leading individuals to mistake subjective feelings for objective realities. Deconstructing these emotional biases grants cognitive clarity, but systematically removes the visceral drivers of human engagement. Affective Flattening as Equilibrium: The resulting stoicism provides a stable, tranquil baseline. Freedom from emotional turmoil is experienced not as emptiness, but as a functional, necessary relief from overburdening internal chaos. Epistemic Isolation and Cognitive Empathy The uncompromising examination of human behavior and societal norms inherently distances the individual from conventional social structures. Most everyday human interactions rely on shared emotional scripts, unexamined cultural assumptions, and instinctive reactions. As philosophical inquiry dismantles these illusions, a structural rift opens between the observer and society: Decoupling from Normative Consensus: Unquestioned social conventions lose their persuasive force once their underlying irrationalities are exposed, rendering participation in standard social rituals hollow. The Shift to Cognitive Empathy: Affective empathy, which is the visceral resonance with another’s emotional state, is superseded by cognitive empathy. The individual retains the intellectual capacity to comprehend human suffering and behavior without absorbing its emotional weight. The Solitude of Disillusionment: Recognizing the pervasive nature of self-deception in social life turns intellectual existence into an inherently solitary endeavor. This isolation is not merely physical, but existential. Institutional Conditioning and the Devaluation of Sensitivity Institutional frameworks, from early educational systems to competitive social structures, requently penalize high degrees of emotional sensitivity. Vulnerability is misconstrued as weakness, while compliance and emotional flattening are rewarded as maturity or resilience. Over time, social conditioning teaches the individual that revealing affect invites exploitation or criticism. The decision to discard emotional sensitivity is thus a rational response to an invalidating environment. Sensitivity is forced underground, preserved only in unconscious latency while the conscious mind operates under strict rational control. Dialectical Transience and Moral Continuity Affective numbness is often mistaken for a permanent psychological restructuring, yet it operates primarily as a transient state of cognitive hibernation. Human consciousness is fundamentally dynamic; no internal state remains static indefinitely. [ Trauma / Excessive Harm ] │ ▼ [ Emotional Repression & Hyper-Rationality ] ──► (Phase of Anesthesia & Solitude) │ ▼ [ Safe Environment / Relational Trust ] │ ▼ [ Affective Reintegration & Restored Sensitivity ] During periods of profound emotional detachment, intuitive moral frameworks remain essential. Even when feeling is absent, rational ethics prevent detachment from devolving into nihilism or malice. Moral action during an anesthetic phase relies not on emotional impulse, but on a deliberate, principled commitment to minimizing harm and maintaining internal integrity. The Synthesis: Sensitivity as an Epistemic Imperative When the individual eventually enters an environment characterized by psychological safety, solitude, or genuine relational trust, the protective necessity of emotional anesthesia subsides. The unconscious mind begins to release its suppressed affective material back into conscious awareness. Far from being an obstacle to philosophical rigor, restored sensitivity serves as a crucial instrument for holistic understanding and creative synthesis. Pure intellectualism provides structural clarity, but without affective integration, it remains perceptually incomplete. Reclaiming emotional capacity within secure boundaries allows the individual to combine analytical precision with profound moral and aesthetic discernment, transforming philosophy from a defensive armor into a complete engagement with reality.

Together In Hermitage (A Love Poem) (Background music) I thought I'd be forlorn, Forever on my own. Suffering alone and misunderstood, Enduring pains only few could. I've been too dead inside, Too ruthless and relentless. But you reminded me of my heart, Engulfed in an imperial fiery start. I focused too much on revenge, Working days on for my relevance. But I missed the person in front of me, The one who finally made me, happy. You've endured me profoundly, Following my lead heartfully. You've lightened up my abyss, Filled my grim void, with bliss. I've dreamed of hermitage, Living distant in the edge. Thought I must do it alone, For love's deadly sting, was shown. But secretly I missed the depth, Of feeling so alive again. But what such thing is truly worth, If experienced only alone? Lonerhood is universal only, Only by its default. Wanting to feel seen by your company, It is my most cherished fault. Hopefully never alone again. Never having to suffer so much pain. Both for me and for you. Let us claim our truth. Together we will rule, A vision towards a better world. Where people are happier and cool. Insights our words will, behold. People don't have to suffer, So much unnecessarily. Many of you can smile. Smile very genuinely. Alex Mos' Feedback Thank you for this beautiful and honest love poem, Mr. Tomasio. It speaks volumes to my heart and powers my mind with joy. True love is real when two minds fit together like yin and yang puzzle pieces, cherish each other's authenticity, strive for self-improvement, and wish for eternal recurrence at the end of their lives. I want to elaborate on the word "honesty". Like you, your verses are authentic and free from the standard of normative expectations. Unlike "narcissistic" words written to be prized for their skillful uniformity with societal conventions, your poems are honest expressions from your heart. In the era of fakeness, like "AI poetry," which can evoke any emotion on demand, I greatly appreciate the exciting uniqueness of your mind I fell in love with, which can be mimicked but never matched by another human or a technological tool.

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

(Background music) Introduciton The defense of established systems frequently relies on a fundamental error in logic: the assumption that because a policy, hierarchy, or social condition currently exists, or has existed historically, it is inherently justified. This form of reasoning, a variation of the classical is-ought fallacy, conflates descriptive reality (how things are) with normative validity (how things ought to be). The Conceptual Error: Conflating Existence with Legitimacy Descriptive vs. Normative: A factual observation carries no intrinsic moral weight. The reality that a practice exists does not generate an ethical obligation to maintain it. The Fallacy of Continuity: Long-standing norms often reflect historical distributions of power rather than rational or ethical correctness. Systemic endurance demonstrates survivability, not justice. Dynamic Imperfection: Human institutions are imperfect, historical artifacts. Defaulting to historical precedents assumes that past solutions remain optimal, ignoring structural failures and evolving moral standards. The Ideological Extreme: Naturalizing Inequality When the status quo is treated as self-justifying, it frequently devolves into variants of Social Darwinism or "might makes right" fatalism. Totalitarian ideologies and imperialist doctrines routinely rationalize subjugation by pointing to empirical disparities in human ability, wealth, or power: The Rhetoric of Natural Necessity: Autocratic frameworks argue that because human beings possess unequal capacities, institutionalized inequality is not only natural but necessary for progress. Under this view, competition, domination, and the subjugation of the weak by the strong are framed as the fundamental mechanics of evolution. Historical Manifestations: This logic has historically underpinned fascism, imperialism, and systemic oppression. In every case, an empirical reality (e.g., military dominance or social inequality) was falsely elevated into a normative prescription: because the strong possess the power to dominate, they possess the right to do so. Descriptive Facts vs. Normative Action Treating empirical realities as moral imperatives leads to ethical paralysis across all scales of organization: Institutional Level: The widespread occurrence of bullying in an educational institution is a descriptive fact, not an ethical justification. The prevalence of a harm highlights a systemic failure to be corrected, not a standard to be tolerated. Societal Level: Historical norms such as slavery, feudalism, and the denial of universal suffrage were once deeply entrenched elements of the status quo. Their ubiquity made them structurally powerful, but moral evaluation eventually exposed them as ethically bankrupt. The Ethical Imperative of Reform Social norms provide baseline predictability, but uncritical adherence converts them into mechanisms of inertia and injustice. Moral progress depends on the capacity to separate what is from what should be. Recognizing that existing conditions are contingent historical outcomes, rather than immutable laws of nature, is the fundamental premise of ethical critique. Identifying the flaws of the status quo is not an act of arbitrary rebellion; it is the core requirement for building rational, just, and effective institutions.

(Background music) Introduction When an individual experiences acute psychological distress or suicidal ideation, the mind often enters a state of severe cognitive narrowing. In this state, pain feels infinite, options feel non-existent, and temporary emotional states are mistranslated as permanent truths. While clinical medicine and therapeutic intervention form the essential foundation of mental healthcare, philosophy offers a unique, practical framework for deconstructing the cognitive traps that make despair feel inescapable. Philosophy was historically designed as a practical discipline, a set of tools to anchor human consciousness against chaos, suffering, and existential dread. Used thoughtfully, philosophical inquiry can disrupt destructive mental loops, introduce alternative perspectives, and buy the critical time needed for a person to reconnect with safety. 1. Deconstructing the Illusion of Permanence One of the most dangerous features of severe emotional suffering is its ability to convince the sufferer that their current state is eternal. Ancient and modern philosophy directly challenge this assumption by examining the nature of time and consciousness. The Law of Flux: Heraclitean philosophy emphasizes that change is the fundamental reality of existence. Emotional states, no matter how severe, are dynamic neurochemical events. Reminding oneself that consciousness is constantly shifting provides a rational counterweight to the feeling of being permanently stuck. Separating Impressions from Judgment: Epictetus and the Stoic tradition laid the groundwork for modern Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) by distinguishing between an event and our interpretation of it. An intrusive thought or an intense wave of anguish is an "impression." Philosophy teaches us to pause before applying a final "judgment" to that impression, creating psychological distance between experiencing a feeling and accepting it as an absolute truth. 2. Reclaiming Agency Through Existentialism When people experience deep distress, they often feel entirely powerless, trapped by circumstances, genetics, or overwhelming mental noise. Existential philosophy reframes suffering not as an ending, but as a site where personal agency can be reclaimed. Viktor Frankl and the Search for Meaning: In Man’s Search for Meaning, psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl observed that human beings can endure almost any hardship if they can attach a reason to their endurance. Meaning is rarely found in grand abstract ideals; more often, it lives in small, concrete anchors, a responsibility to a loved one, an unfinished project, or simply the quiet decision to see what tomorrow brings. Camus and the Choice to Live: Albert Camus argued that in an unpredictable world, choosing to live is the ultimate act of personal freedom and defiance. Reframing survival not as a passive burden, but as an active, conscious choice to keep moving forward despite the noise, can give someone a profound sense of resilience. 3. Interrogating Distortion with Socratic Logic Suicidal ideation frequently relies on distorted, internal logic loops, such as believing one is an irredeemable burden, or that temporary pain requires a permanent solution. Philosophical inquiry provides structured tools to interrogate these loops objectively: Socratic Questioning: Rather than arguing directly, asking analytical questions helps dismantle false premises. Questions like "Is this thought reflecting a proven fact, or is it reflecting exhaustion?" or "If a friend were in this exact position, would I apply this same harsh standard to them?" help bring rational evaluation back online. Neutralizing Ego-Dystonic Noise: Philosophical thinking helps categorize intrusive or violent thoughts as external static rather than reflections of core identity. By treating shocking thoughts as mechanical misfires of an overworked brain, the shame and alarm surrounding them naturally diminish. 4. Understanding Boundaries and Clinical Synergy While philosophical frameworks provide powerful conceptual anchors, using philosophy during a crisis requires understanding its limits. Philosophy is an intellectual and reflective tool, not a replacement for medical care or professional safety planning. The Danger of Secrecy: Philosophical discussions about existence must never be used to justify keeping severe crisis hidden. Concealing suicidal intent isolates a person from vital support networks and dramatically increases risk. True care involves bringing distress out of the shadows and into the care of qualified professionals. Collaborative Safety: Philosophical clarity can open a temporary window of relief, but structured healthcare builds the foundation that keeps that window open. In moments of acute danger, immediate connection with crisis resources, is essential. Philosophical thinking saves lives by giving the mind a stable place to stand when emotions feel overwhelming. By reframing pain as temporary, stripping intrusive logic of its authority, and anchoring consciousness in personal choice, philosophy serves as a powerful bridge back toward safety, perspective, and support.

(Background music) (Philosocom's Mastery Series) "The mind is everything. What you think, you become," -- Gautama Buddha You have power over your mind -- not outside events. Realize this, and you'll find strength -- Marcus Aurelius Mastering your own mind is a product of an internal work, and is based on the ability to let go of external stimuli, in favor of acceptance. Think of a noisy neighbor as an example. If you are sensitive to noise you will suffer unnecessarily. However, when you master your own mind, you would actively apply reason to calm yourself. Mastering one's own mind stems from the ability to let go of external and internal attachments. It comes from the ability to simply observe one's thoughts and feelings as if they were separated from you. Much of mastering one's own mind comes from developing virtue. For instance, developing the virtue of patience shall allow you to let the other side speak even if you disagree with them. Mastering one's mind is a most difficult task that only ends with the ability to be at peace with reality, no matter what that reality is. However, the fact that something is most difficult, doesn't render it impossible, nor unworthy task to pursue. Imagine being peaceful even during the direst of conflicts, like war. Imagine being peaceful even when being insulted. Imagine being peaceful even when life is hard. Much of mastering one's own mind stems from accepting reality as it is, without letting the desire to change it, take a grip on you. The master of one's own mind instead shapes their internal world, instead of the external world. According to the World Rectification philosophy, each person is its own world, therefore, you are your own world as well. By philosophizing in solitude, one can shape one's mind. By meditating, by asking oneself questions and attempting to find answers to them, one can shape one's mind over time, and thus grow and develop towards change. Mastering one's mind is done in solitude. It is done by the ability to endure one's solitude and instead use it as a transformative tool to change oneself according to one's wishes. As said, a lot of mastering one's mind comes from letting go. From stopping to be in a constant pursuit of the next big thing. The master of one's own mind applies critical thinking to surpass the herd mentality and to become truly uncontrollable by external influence. As such, the master of one's mind becomes free from the societal matrix, and instead gains the mental freedom to shape one's own destiny, independently of external stimuli. Imagine external and internal stimuli to be like cars, while you are being a mere observer. The master of one's own mind knows who he or she really is, is an observer. They know they are not their thoughts, they know they are not their emotions, and they know they are not their stress or their peace. With enough virtue, the master of one's own mind bends his thought process to his or her will, thus changing and transforming per their wants and needs. They don't need anyone to transform. All they need is the power within them to become whatever they desire: From calm to passionate to tired to awake. Mastering one's own mind can be a lifelong journey that ends with one's demise. One of the hardest postures in yoga is called "The Corpse" because it requires you to silence your mind independently of movement. And all man's troubles stem from his inability to sit quietly alone in a room. The more mental problems you may be suffering from, the harder for you will be to simply sit and do nothing peacefully. However, once you are able to master your own mind, you will be able to truly appreciate what you have, which is the source of all happiness. In a world that focuses on being accomplished, happiness becomes elusive. The more you will be busy chasing something, the more miserable you will become. Sometimes, happiness stems from the ability to quietly be alone in a room, feeling truly blessed with one already has. So, if you want to be happy, for example, you need to regularly think gratefully about the things that you have, instead of thinking about what you don't have. As such, you may realize that much of your happiness depends on yourself. In order to write a lot, I choose to be unsatisfied, and live life as if it was a tragic tale of dis-satisfaction. World Rectification is an impossible task, because there will always be something in this world to repair. As such, I will never entirely know satisfaction in life beyond the shelters of love and rest. It is this very own lack of satisfaction, that I choose to feel, that compels me to write so much and contribute to this world through my writings. And only in solitude, away from the computer, I allow myself to rest, watch the world around me, and practice gratitude for what I have. Should there be something that bothers me, and is beyond my control, I will use reason to calm myself. Letting go, is the path to inner peace. Letting go of rectifying this world by through Philosocom contributions, is something I refuse to let go of. I don't have the heartlessness to not contribute.

I've been searching for years for the ideal place. And I come to the realization that the only way to find it is to be it -- Alan Watts (Inspired theme) People may come and go, Whether or not they value you. Do not underestimate your worth, Or you'll disappoint yourself, too. In solitude you should confide, It will never set you aside. Accept it regardless of day, You're not an obstacle in her way. Life is full of frustrations, Unless you only have small voids in you. Without these voids, problems are less mentionable, And giving more you'll be able. (Giving more, you'll be able). A narcissist is greatly starving, For a void they fail to fulfill. No matter how many followers they get, They can still remain displeased. In solitude you should confide, It will never set you aside. Accept it regardless of day, You're not an obstacle in her way. Life is full of frustrations, Unless you only have small voids in you. Without these voids, problems are less mentionable, And giving more you'll be able. (Giving more, you'll be able). Stress can be greatly caused, By things outside your control. Detach your worth from them and you'll be whole, And you can still fulfill your call. In solitude you should confide, It will never set you aside. Accept it regardless of day, You're not an obstacle in her way. Life is full of frustrations, Unless you only have small voids in you. Without these voids, problems are less mentionable, And giving more you'll be able. (Giving more, you'll be able For others you'll be able, For others, be more able).

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 No man is more unhappy than he who never faces adversity. For he is not permitted to prove himself. — Seneca (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.