NEOSA

NEOSA Micheal Kobi Onwuazo “ο κόσμος είναι περισσότερο απ' όσο μπορεί να δει το μάτι”

NEOSA TABLE OF CONTENTS [Written on the 5th of June 2023] Preface…………………………………………………………………………………………....3 Moral Anarchism ………………………………………………………………………………...5 Doroism…………………………………………………………………………………………..16 Irony of evil……………………………………………………………………………………....29 Thysiaism………………………………………………………………………………………...39 Gnosism………………………………………………………………………………………….49 [Page numbers may vary depending on the format, the numbering for the contents is designed for the google docs standard.]

PREFACE Salutations philosophical academia and fellow readers alike. Thank you for coming to read this extensive book containing all my current philosophies. I am deeply grateful for you finding enough time to read this strenuous piece and I truly admire all the support, kindness and appreciation from the philosophical community. The name of this book is ‘Neosa’ which comes from the Greek word ‘ néos ’ (νέος) which means new. I chose this name almost as a hope that once people finish reading this book, they will see the world ‘anew’ in a manner, or possibly just widen their perspectives on mundane, everyday affairs in life. I really do hope you enjoy reading this massive book and I wish you all the best.



MORAL ANARCHISM by [Micheal Kobi Onwuazo] An independent paper concerning moral philosophy [Philosophy]

Saturday 25th of June 2022 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express immense gratitude to the many illegalist and anarchist thinkers who gave partial inspiration for this paper as well as third-party sites who helped tremendously with their familiarity and technical knowledge in the process of research. Thanks to the members of Wikipedia for their ingenuity in their Anarchism encyclopedia

CONTENTS Number Page Glossary..........................................................................................................8 Introduction....................................................................................................9 Ethical Dilemma.............................................................................................10 Moral Anarchism............................................................................................11 Justification.....................................................................................................12 Illegalism........................................................................................................13 Possibility of Occurrence...............................................................................13 Summary.........................................................................................................14 [Page numbers may vary depending on the format, the numbering for the contents is designed for the google docs standard.]

GLOSSARY Rudimentary: involving or limited to basic principles. Innately: as an inborn characteristic; naturally. Transcendent: beyond or above the range of normal or physical human experience. Mobocracy: rule or domination by the masses. Dogmatism: teachings inclined to lay down principles as undeniably true. Libertarianism: a political philosophy that upholds liberty as a core value. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom and minimize the state's encroachment on individual liberties Egoism: an ethical theory that treats self-interest as the foundation of morality. Hedonistic: engaged in the pursuit of pleasure; sensually self-indulgent. Illegalism: Illegalism is a tendency of anarchism that developed primarily in France, Italy, Belgium, and Switzerland during the late 1890s and early 1900s as an outgrowth of individualist anarchism Dynamism: the quality of being flexible or resilient. La reprise individuelle: (Individual reclamation) is a form of direct action, characterized by the individual theft of resources from the rich by the poor.

INTRODUCTION Greetings fellow philosophical enthusiasts and readers alike. I'm deeply honored that you are reading this thesis on my nascent philosophy and am all the more thankful for you taking your time to go through this long and strenuous paper. Firstly I would like to define Moral Anarchism as the belief that there is nothing innately right or wrong so people should be free to do as they please morally, without any outside interference i.e. the justice system or sort of government intervention like law enforcement. In this sense, morality would be subjective or assumed as a social construct to instill peace and order. For Moral Anarchism to prevail, we would have to assume two things: ● There is no higher power(s) or their existence is highly refutable ● Religion would not serve an important role in everyday life These although happening in some isolated instances across the developed world, are not precisely widespread phenomena, the vast majority of people still believe in religion (86%), and out of many people who are unaffiliated, a large percentage of them are still spiritual or believe in a higher power to some extent while not belonging to any organized belief structure. Therefore, the majority of the world, or at least to an extent would have to believe that the existence of higher powers is not a fundamental fact. The reason for this will be explained later on.

Chapter 1 ETHICAL DILEMMA In a world without God, or any religious body or force to enact, dictate or spread religion as the strict, undeniable, unquestionable, rudimentary moral code, there would be nothing explicitly right or wrong. While many people could argue that morality is something from ‘within’ that everyone somehow naturally pertains to, it still wouldn't answer the ideological dilemma presented by an undefined morality. Likewise, nothing would innately be right or wrong, meaning that people would and should be able to come up with their own standard of morality, of what they personally view as ‘moral’ or not. This may sound great as people get to choose what they consciously feel is moral but a serious ethical dilemma would occur in such morally progressive conditions. Someone may see something as moral while someone else may see it as immoral but there's absolutely nothing and should be absolutely nothing stopping them from pursuing their standard of morality i.e. Stealing may be seen by someone as wrong but another person may see it as a ‘righteous act’, therefore nothing should stop that individual from stealing since there is nothing innately wrong with stealing in this situation. Again, some individuals may argue that ‘something is wrong if it hurts someone, but what about eating meat? That hurts animals in horrific ways yet 89% of people enjoy feasting on other living organisms. What about tough love?, it does sure hurt someone and can be seen as cruel by the inflicted party, however, the people using tough love do it out of compassion and sincerity to benefit the receiving party, even if they don't like it i.e. taking someone to see a doctor for a serious illness even if they are strictly against the idea, forcing someone off drugs, grounding, making someone go to school, stopping someone from excessive alcohol abuse, etc. In this world, people should have the freedom to do any crime or illegal activity they please because it's simply not wrong. Additionally, the idea of human rights itself, the inert and fundamental qualities or protections we as humans are somehow entitled to from a somewhat supreme and transcendent power would be all but eradicated. We humans are not entitled to anything if we do not have any explicitly saying that we as humans have the rights to be treated or do certain things. The whole notion, from a literal perspective, is a fictional cohesively agreed-on practice that people follow because it benefits them, not that it's actually defined fact. The right to food, shelter, water, adequate healthcare, clothing, security, and life is already violated and threatened so conventions, declarations, and treaties passed around these relative rights should not be treated as such, as simply, these rights should not exist in the way they do.

The abolishment of human rights and its associated agreements like the Geneva convention and the United Declaration of Human Rights (UHDR) would have to be proceeded due to this new rationale in order to maintain the reason that any ‘intellectual society’ would go ahead with. Moreover, penal codes, the judiciary, and the law in itself would have to be abolished because of it’s oppressive ways, as it criminalizes activity that is not hypothetically wrong in any shape or form. To prevent this moral mobocracy from existing, a completely free laissez-faire approach would have to be adopted in order to prevent the ‘narrow’ moral views of a few to suppress the moral freedoms of the masses. And most importantly, not letting these ‘dogmatic’ and ‘ancient’ beliefs on what is right or wrong infringe on someone's right to self determine what is good or not. Freedom should be the only guiding principle when it comes to morality as there's nothing explicitly said about how morality should be tackled. It's not like there's a giant billboard or a hard drive inserted into our brains that says that ‘murder and stealing are wrong no matter what, as these beliefs in this world, have simply been a result of the conditioning and nurture of the environments around us, whose opinions on morality have guided us to the consensus that it is inherently wrong when in fact there is nothing that says otherwise, simply an opinion, which should never be taken as fact. Chapter 2 MORAL ANARCHISM This would lead to a form of Moral Anarchism. One that truly is defined by libertarianism, however, would be ‘ruined’ in a sense by extremists, and people who want to take advantage of their ‘newly found freedom’. We should or would see the rise of large-scale robberies, burglaries, assaults, murders, torture, rape, and so on as people are free from the ‘limitations of the legal system’ and are free to do whatever they view as moral. An environment of gross hostility, vengeance, hatred, and emotional deprivation would follow the immense and vicious criminal activity in the world and the legal system or any governing body would fail to stop any reprisal attacks or jungle justice as it would break the moral building blocks in this morally free dystopia. People simply would have to be radicalized or toughened to an extreme extent to cope with the rise of such horrific violence which would lead to the breakdown of any remnants of a civic society. Even if Moral Anarchism affects only the judiciary element of the government, not the total collapse or destruction of it characterized by actual anarchism, this lack of law enforcement would slowly but surely lead to the demise of the political hierarchy itself as politicians propagate these morally anarchist ideas, which while true in every form and essence, threaten the

well being and protection of people. What is all the more saddening is that this environment would have to nurture and be taught to children, which would lead to a never-ending cycle of perpetual death and violence. JUSTIFICATION? How exactly is all of this epistemically justified? If people simply are free to choose what they want morally then why would the views of a few extremists make everyone savvy blood-thirsty monsters? What if jungle justice would in a sense eradicate these extremists before society itself is corrupted? Why is this outlook on this hypothetical world so pessimistic? To answer some of these questions, I would like to look at the physiological aspect of people. The term negative cognitive bias refers to how negative events or feelings have a more profound impact on people compared to positive things. i.e. insults may affect people more than praise, more negative thoughts compared to positive ones, etc. Although these are relative and depend on the person, in all sincerity, negative stimuli generally can be agreed on as being more influential in someone's mental and physiological state than positive ones. If you got married to your wife that sounds amazing, but on the other hand, getting a divorce can be life-wrecking, even though they relatively have the same ‘emotional value’, most people would agree getting a divorce would be more heart-wrenching than getting married is fulfilling. So imagine a world where a minority of people do take advantage of this ‘moral anarchism’ and use it as leverage against our more moral counterparts. The trauma involved in their crimes would outweigh the good brought by the freedoms in this philosophy so people would resort to being more brute to cope with the adversity presented by these criminals. Not to mention, if people do not become more tough and resilient to evolve and live in this more morally dynamic world, then they will become more susceptible and vulnerable to the evils this dynamism presents. Like the term ‘fighting fire with fire’goes, people would have to be more mentally and physically fervent to fight back against the large-scale criminality, which oftentimes would simply mean their moral conscience would start or be completely corroded.’ Furthermore, looking at our violent world today even with law enforcement is scary. People commit the worst atrocities even under the law and many countries have crimes of unimaginable proportions in Ecuador and El Salvador. So then imagine a world with all this crime alongside no judiciary! It would be arbitrary to conclude that we'd be in a safer, more fair world without a justice system and structures to protect us from the criminals which plague this world with violence. How again would it be to keep to morals in a world where morality in itself no longer exists, it's insanity to think that people would keep to a coherent good moral code when there's nothing stopping them, or outside externalities forcing them to abandon it. People care more for their survival than being ‘moral’ so it's exactly what they would abandon.

Chapter 3 ILLEGALISM One prominent instance of a sort of Moral Anarchism I would like to explore is illegalism which grew in popularity during the early 1990s in France, Belgium, Italy, and Switzerland. Although its impact on everyday society was minimal, illegalism played a role in the philosophical environment and development of the era as its followers did not seek a moral basis for their actions and illegal acts were done simply to satisfy personal desires, not for some greater ideal. Illegalism first rose to prominence among a generation of Europeans inspired by the unrest of the 1890s, during which Ravachol, Émile Henry, Auguste Vaillant, and Caserio committed publicized crimes in the name of anarchism, in what is known as propaganda of the deed; France's Bonnot Gang was the most famous group to embrace illegalism. This philosophy was influenced by Max Stirner's egoism, as well as the philosophers Proudhon, Clément Duval, and Marius Jacob who proposed the theory of la reprise individuelle (individual reclamation) which justified robbery of the rich and personal direct action against exploiters and the broken system. This is truly fascinating because this philosophy, often overshadowed by its more appreciated mother of thought (anarchism) does present some of the outcomes discussed previously in this philosophy. People would choose to live more hedonistically and put self-gratification over the law which in this instance would be any form of a moral conscience; which would have the unintended consequence of the moral bankruptcy which would plague a morally anarchist world. I would also like to add that these aforementioned countries are also fairly liberal for the time being and France is one the most historically rich countries in the world, producing some of the best and most renowned thinkers and philosophical authors, so it's not far fetched to think this ideology could pick up in the intellectual community and eventually the masses. POSSIBILITY OF OCCURRENCE? The big question everyone must be asking is could this possibly happen? Is it simply deluded to think that our world could plunge into such disorder in such a peaceful and educated time in history? Well to put it short, I firmly believe this is a possibility but is all the more improbable due to our current civic development. We live in a world where developed countries continue to become more irreligious and liberalism has taken off globally; making more people challenge the status quo. Renewed interests in philosophy have led to a sharp increase in modern thinkers and

skeptics of the hierarchical system alike and general dissatisfaction and mistrust of the government by the far-right and left makes a perfect catalyst for a hypothetical anarchist reality. Yet the percentage of the unaffiliated population globally is actually shrinking due to the drop in birth rates in more irreligious countries like China and the growth of Islam in Western Europe, Central and South East Asia, and Africa which firmly outpaces the growth of irreligion. And for the most part, people have some sort of faith in the judicial system in richer nations, as it attempts to be fair and resourceful with its convicts, and is separated by the prying hands of ‘big government’ and would-be politicians. People also in general like order! They are in a sense ‘moral’ because they can imagine what a world without morals would look like. Religion is also not going anywhere anytime soon and Hollywood's depiction of anarchy as being impoverishing and undesirable has made people firmly against it. So while it is in every dimension possible, who knows if it will truly take off? SUMMARY Moral Anarchism is the belief that there is nothing innately right or wrong so people should be free to do as they please morally, without any outside interference i.e. the justice system or sort of government intervention like law enforcement. In this sense, morality would be subjective or assumed as a social construct to instill peace and order. In a morally anarchist world, a serious ethical dilemma would exist as someone may see something as moral while someone else may see it as immoral but there's absolutely nothing and there should be absolutely nothing stopping them from pursuing their standard of morality; human rights would be eradicated Moral Anarchism would lead to not just the dissolvment of the judiciary, but eventually of the government, law enforcement, and the entirety of the political hierarchy itself as politicians propagate these morally anarchist ideas, which while true in every form and essence, threaten the well-being and protection of people. Because negative cognitive bias, which refers to how negative events or feelings have a more profound impact on people compared to positive things, people would be more adversely affected by criminal activity and that would lead them into being less moral and more defined by the hostility and violence their perpetrators used against them. Moral Anarchism can be seen in the illegasit practices of individuals in the 1990s in France, Italy, Switzerland, and Belgium which Egoism and Anarchism inspired.

Due to the growth of western irreligion, liberalism, modern philosophy, and skepticism, it's becoming evermore probable that we could live in a morally anarchist world, but due to the average decrease in irreligion, some faith in the government, religious holdings, and coherent moral conscience most people have, it can seem more hypothetical than to assume tangible.

DOROISM by [Micheal Kobi Onwuazo] An independent paper concerning emotional mechanisms in philosophy, psychology and the wider society

[Philosophy] Friday 1st of July 2022 2022

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express appreciation to Sigmund Freud, Immanuel Kant, Arisitupus, and Fredrich Nietzche who gave relevant insight for this paper as well as third-party sites who helped tremendously with their cognizance and expertise in the process of research. Thanks to the members of Wikipedia for their ingenuity in their Hedonism, Nihilism, and Melancholia encyclopcias.

CONTENTS Number Page Introduction.....................................................................................................20 Emotions.........................................................................................................20 Doroism...........................................................................................................22 Why people are emotional...............................................................................23 Rebuttals to emotions.......................................................................................24 Relevant Philosophies......................................................................................24 Conclusion........................................................................................................26 Glossary............................................................................................................26 [Page numbers may vary depending on the format, the numbering for the contents is designed for the google docs standard.]

INTRODUCTION Greetings philosophical scholars and fellow readers, I'm all the more thankful for you for coming to read another one of my philosophies, and for your time and careful consideration of the contents discussed in this paper. I would like to define Doroism as the belief that emotions are destructive and serve no net positive beneficial outcomes to individuals. The term ‘Doroism’ is derived from the Greek word ‘dóro’ (δώρο) which can be translated as a gift. The topics discussed below may be deemed complicated and thought-provoking but I aim to deliver my interjections through this medium. Chapter 1 EMOTIONS When we look at our human emotions, anger, sadness, joy, jealousy, wrath, and covetousness, what's the common outlier we see in all of these? It's not the fact that they are emotional states of mind that have immense impacts on the way humans and the broader society function but rather the tendency in all of these is that they are short-lived yet highly impressionable. For the most part, no one is really living a never-ending selectively hedonist euphoria, where everything in their lives is magically pure and jovial. And usually, even if you are on the more unemotional or melancholic side, there is a mix of both shortcoming positive and negative emotions that challenges or improve your own mental stability or general sensitivity. So if we have established that generally, people usually enjoy a more bleak sense of reality, only momentarily shaped by these brief emotional highs and lows, why exactly do we need them? To think that these forces, driven by carnal hormones affect how we interact and conduct ourselves to a point where we do actions without a sense of rationality is absurd and worrying. Now for those who want to look at it from a more physiological manner, where sadness, anger, and joy relieve stress or increase one's feeling of satisfaction, it's not exactly that clean cut. I see emotion as a double-edged sword, ready to build up and hurt people, causing them to have a false sense of security and also can lead to an exaggerated sense of depravity. Simply people would be better off giving up these volatile emotional sensations for what people might see as

more dull boring personas. For example, happiness. Happiness is widely known to make you feel better, more alive and energetic, satisfied, fulfilled, and jovial, yet happiness scientifically also makes people more inflexible to challenges, can increase someone's gullibility, selfishness, and more vulnerable to traumatic events like someone's passing or a freak accident. The happiness you could say builds someone's emotional security or sense of confidence so perilously high it's devastatingly shattered once broken. Imagine living your whole life deceivingly assuming life purely is bliss and having nothing heartwrenching happen to you, yet when something even mildly chaotic or traumatic occurs it breaks you entirely. Someone who has already experienced sadness or no joy would find it easier to cope with the challenges presented by being naively happy. Furthermore, sadness,a feeling a lot of people deal with on a day-to-day basis and struggle to face it’s adversity. Sadness in its many forms wreaks havoc on someone's psychological state and for many leads them to an ultimate demise. Yet sadness is also proven to increase someone's judgments when they have a mildly bad mood, as they are able to reduce some biases and distortions on how they form impressions of people, and can also help to improve someone's attention to detail and develop one's memory retention capabilities. As you can see these two polar opposites have relatively nothing in common yet bring positive and negative aspects into someone's life. Although generally, sadness is a net negative and happiness is a net positive emotion, these both bring their own peculiar issues; though it must be stated that their impacts on people are not the same and some are more profoundly impactful than others. Think of it as not an equally balanced spectrum but one which is very distortedly weighted. Like coldness and hotness. Heat can go up to trillions of degrees while coldness only goes down to (-273) degrees celsius. Even though both will kill you and people feel as if they are simply the same effect on you in dire situations, truly looking at it from this broader point of view shows you just how unbalanced they can be. Now think of sadness as heat and joy as coldness. People who experience joy can only be so happy before there is nothing to be happier about. People can admire the beauty, enjoy the company of different people and feel cheerful for even the gift of life but that type of joy can only go so far before you've reached your “peak of happiness”. Meanwhile, sadness can range from a more subtle feeling of being down to a full-on mental disorder, and if left to its fullest can cause depression, self-harm, and suicide. People who suffer from depression arguably are more emotionally affected than someone who’s happy. People who experience depression are more likely to do more irrational endeavors than someone suffering from being a ‘ tad bit smiley ’. These emotions, alongside other feelings, can make someone’s life more complicated, and evermore difficult as emotions can make people more likely to commit rash, unreasonable actions due to their relative flawed perceived reality. For example, someone whos not angry wouldn't go fight someone on the street for no reason, someone who isn't happy is going to be more egoistic, someone whos not depressed won't feel

the need to commit suicide, and someone who does not feel jealous won't feel the need to be malicious or commit evil against someone else, someone who is not feeling scared will not back out of situations which may benefit them in the long- run and so on. While these scenarios or instances given may be relative and hypothetical, it's unarguable that emotions divert people from achieving their fullest potential or hinder them from even trying to achieve better as a sense of trojan-fulfillment or intense materialism makes people do things that set them off the path to manageable and steady success. For this reason, Doroism must be implemented. Chapter 2 DOROISM Doroism as stated before is the belief that emotions are destructive and serve no net positive benefit to individuals; due to the regularity of emotions generally being more pessimistic and negative; outweighing the more jolly emotions. If people were simply not bound to suffer or feel pleased by these fleeting exhilarations then imagine how much more stable the average person or society would be. If we took emotions in literally any other circumstance like business, where risky short-term opportunities for success arise and are taken immediately, imagine how financially unreliable it would be to operate and grow long-term, as the company is being held back by short-term money grabs while sacrificing any room for future potential growth. The same should apply to people and emotions. Picture a world where people did not suffer from depression, anxiety, fear, paranoia, anger, distress, jealousy, covetousness, rage, spite, and so many other detrimental emotions. The world would be so much more peaceful and generally stable. Crimes would reduce, people's livelihoods would be more consistent and mental health would be thriving. This all would have been achieved at the small expense of more positive emotions such as happiness, joy, and hope. It would simply be so much more socially beneficial to abandon emotion in favor of what people see as less desirable, non-emotional lifestyles; free of drama and cheer but truly a more calm and peaceful one. Let's say in this example, we use an electroencephalogram(EEG), and a functional magnetic resonance imaging brain activity (fMRI) to measure brain activity as a result of emotions. We give a person a wave frequency of 34 Hz, with the beta frequency band for an undefined negative emotion, and give someone 5 Hz, with the alpha frequency band for an opposite undefined

positive emotion. If we remove these 34 hertz and the 5 hertz the difference in brain activity will be more intense for removing the negative emotions than the positive emotions, with a difference of 29Hz. So as you can see these negative frequencies are all the more impactful and it would again be a net positive to sacrifice these positive emotions in place of the riddance of the negative ones. This opportunity cost seems so straightforward that it's simply flabbergasting to think people would rather be emotionally vulnerable, and susceptible to the kind of risks that sadness and other emotions that help in the development of mental disorders cause. So what exactly could be these limitations of this way of thinking that makes us emotional? Chapter 3 WHY PEOPLE ARE EMOTIONAL If we exclude the neurological reasons for having emotions, as they are literally part of our nature, I would also like to add that our environment, nurture, human impressionability, and culture all demand us to be emotional. Social ecosystems are filled with positive and negative emotions, expressed vehemently and proudly almost everywhere you go. People who don't bend towards these socially optimum levels of emotional activity are regularly seen as ‘boring’ or ‘lack personality, as they don't get sad or angry, happy or mad when normally other people would. People don't like the feeling of being ostracized or left out, or being judged or condemned whether they deserve it or not, so they would rather suffer with emotional baggage and be accepted than be an outcast yet free from emotion. Another reason is simply that its part of us humans. They are adaptations that protect us from danger, hostility, or violence and give us the strength to combat our confusing and wicked world. While a lot of the harshness in life is caused by humans; directed by emotions, the natural world and mother nature can be just as cruel. Wild animals regularly kill and savage people. Without emotions for say, people would be left more defenseless against the world's aggressions. Furthermore, emotions give rise to aesthetic and intellectual development, such as philosophy, the arts, poetry, fine literature, drama and many more works. Pessimism, Hedonism, Melancholy, Nihilism and the likes are all drawn from their respective emotions and odes, lethargic or blissful poetry are drawn from sentiments of feeling love, lethargy and joy respectively. People can draw paintings to admire the natural beauty of the world but also in adoration, sadness, turmoil, peril and hopelessness. They can be allegories for wider meanings or their aspects can be symbolic for a bigger picture; a testament to their creativity. They could simply also be done in love, passion, or sadness and loneliness, all legitimate and adequate reasons for embarking on an artistic journey. Edvard Munch’s Melancholy, Domenico Fetti’s Repentant St. Mary Magdalene, and

Van Gogh’s Portrait of Dr. Gachet all pay homage to melancholy, and other the other side of the spectrum, The Kiss by Gustav Klimt, Flower Matango by Takashi Murakami and The Tale of Benjamin Bunny by Beatrix Potter all give credence to joy. REBUTTALS TO EMOTIONS, However, while these emotions to an extent, and in many cases cannot be controlled, sometimes self-restraint and control is needed in order to keep up with society's rigid expectations and to stay in the law. For example, you cannot just assault someone if you feel particularly rageful at someone; doing so will have severe legal consequences. In that regard, people should be able to mitigate their emotions so they can have more meek and simple lives going forward, and would let people avoid rash and erratic decision-making. Many of these poetic, philosophical, literary and dramatic pieces come from emotions, there's no denying that, but it's somewhat ironic as they are a result of the complex and evil world created by our feeble emotions. Melancholia derived from the heartbreaks, trauma, and pain inflicted by others; anger, slyness and jealousy, anger from entrenched rage at oppressive systems, tyrannical governments and an overbearing society. Fear from the criminal networks inspired by greed and lust of money, all of these works are explicitly shaped out in these works of tremendous value and are simply the outcome of the emotional catastrophe we humans have shaped with our own hands. Chapter 4 RELEVANT PHILOSOPHIES Melancholia Melancholia or melancholy is a condition characterized by markedly depressed mood, bodily complaints, and sometimes hallucinations and delusions. One prominent neurologist, Sigmund Freud describes melancholy as “a loss is so unbearable that it gets relegated to the unconscious, where the grief exists but can't get processed by the conscious mind.” One very prominent figure in philosophy, Immanuel Kant described melancholia as “the weakness of abandoning oneself

despondently to general morbid feelings that have no definite object”. These views into melancholy are heavily insightful, yet cautionary and slightly sinister. It's all the more frightening and intriguing that we as people cling to such demanding emotional restraints when such prominent figures are actively opposed to these fervors. Hedonism On the other hand, the complete, entire polar opposite, hedonism is a philosophy that refers to a family of theories, all of which have in common that pleasure plays a central role in them. Psychological or motivational hedonism claims that human behavior is determined by desires to increase pleasure and decrease pain. Hedonism makes someone feel pleasure at the top of any adamant hedonist's agenda and the seeking and the fulfillment of said pleasures are quintessential to one's sort of accomplishment in life; Sometimes this does not account for bypassing the moral conventions to derive said pleasures. Aristippus, the father of Hedonism identified the end as pleasure. Most of the pleasures that Aristippus is depicted as pursuing have to do with sensual gratification, such as sleeping with courtesans and enjoying fine food and old wines. Most definitely sensual gratification and materialistic gain give great meaning to life, doesn't it? Relying solely on these objects or people for mere pleasure while not facing the reality of such a bewildered and harsh world is a catacomb for disaster. Pleasure in itself will not solve the deepened wounds bared by a burdened humanity, and in the process of pursuing these said pleasures, people may need to bypass ethical conducts such as trust, to achieve these “desired necessities”. For example, Aristippus previously identified sensual gratification, yet if someone is attracted to someone who is in a committed relationship, would it be fair to them to quench their hedonistic desires by being in an affair with them in order to fulfill this meaning in their lives? Is it worth pain and void it will leave in others, simply to derive a vague and shifting definition to reality? Cheaters and adulterers would agree while every ethical notion would say otherwise, yet the problem persists. Hedonism in this respect can do more harm than what it aims to do even with seemingly best of intentions. Nihilism Nihilism is the philosophy that is associated with the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless. The father of Nihilism, Friedrich Nietzsche, an outstanding, infamous and brilliant thinker in his own regard, said “the idea that life has no meaning or value – cannot be avoided; we must go through it, as frightening and lonely as that will be ''. The idea of death to many is an anxiety-inducing idea, and many of these fundamental questions about reality, existence and mortality leaves many people afraid, perplexed and unsure. Many people confide in emotions to deal with the insecurity of death and the surface-level pointlessness and mystery life brings, yet these emotional responses do nothing to shape the

reality which they will all do and will eventually face. Using emotions as an escape mechanism to stray away from answering or facing these tough questions is simply ignorance in the working. And as humans, beings given the beauty and hidden curse of reason, we should strive to seek the truth and only the truth and not comfort ourselves in any cozy deceptions. In a world without emotions, people would not run away to these pressing questions but live lives free from these soothing fraudulent truths, even if that type of life is disheartening. CONCLUSION I have explored the dynamics of emotions, the philosophy of Doroism, possible limitations, and its relationship to Melancholia, Hedonism and mildly expanded on the rationale in Nihilism. Everything discussed here is to challenge the unquestioned and continued practice of histrionic behavior and practices in society, but also to be pragmatic and rational when looking into them. At the end of the day, emotions will always play a role in society, but how much theoretically better could society be in an emotionless reality? GLOSSARY Covetousness: eager or excessive desire, especially for wealth or possessions Hedonism: a family of theories, all of which have in common that pleasure plays a central role in them. Euphoria: a feeling or state of intense excitement and happiness. Pessimism: a negative mental attitude in which an undesirable outcome is anticipated from a given situation Nihilism: the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. Melancholia: a feeling of deep sadness; melancholy.

Volatile: liable to change rapidly and unpredictably, especially for the worse. Relativity: To say that something is relative means that it can be true for one person and not for another, aka it is not explicitly true or unquestionable like objective truth. Trojan: something that is deceptive or pretends to be something it's not in order to get access or deceive an induced or user i.e. a trojan malware or horse Exhilarations: Feelings characterized by feeling very happy, animated, or elated; thrilling. Paranoia: thinking and feeling like you are being threatened in some way, even if there is no evidence, or very little evidence, that you are; an irrational fear Detrimental: tending to cause harm. Electroencephalogram(EEG): a test that measures electrical activity in the brain using small, metal discs (electrodes) attached to the scalp. Brain cells communicate via electrical impulses and are active all the time, even during sleep. This activity shows up as wavy lines on an EEG recording. Functional magnetic resonance imaging or functional MRI (fMRI): measures brain activity by detecting changes associated with blood flow. Hertz: a unit of frequency (of change in state or cycle in a sound wave, alternating current, or other cyclical waveforms) of one cycle per second. It replaces the earlier term of \"cycle per second (cps).\" Beta waves are a neural oscillation (brainwave) in the brain with a frequency range of between 12.5 and 30 Hz (12.5 to 30 cycles per second). Alpha rhythm: A frequency that ranges from 8–13 Hz. The alpha rhythm is the most important component of the EEG signal, and the main frequency is about 10 Hz. Flabbergasting: surprise (someone) greatly; astonish.

Vehemently: in a forceful, passionate, or intense manner; with great feeling. Aesthetic: concerned with beauty or the appreciation of beauty. Credence: belief in or acceptance of something as true. Lethargic: affected by lethargy; sluggish and apathetic. Erratic: not even or regular in pattern or movement; unpredictable. Mitigate: make (something bad) less severe, serious, or painful. Despondent: feeling or showing extreme discouragement, dejection, or depression despondent about his health. Quintessential: representing the most perfect or typical example of a quality or class. Sensual gratification: relating to or consisting in the gratification of the senses or the indulgence of appetite : Histrionic: dramatic or theatrical. Pragmatic: dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations. Curse of reason: When one reaches a point of extreme intellectual development or knowledge that is enough to truly understand the raw predicament of their existence or situation, which leaves them feeling hopeless, lost or empty.

IRONY OF EVIL by [Micheal Kobi Onwuazo] An independent paper concerning ethics and moral philosophy [Philosophy]

4th of July 2022 2022 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to acknowledge the thinkers and theologians who helped categorize good and evil which aided enormously in the composition of this piece, as well as third-party sites who helped tremendously with their familiarity and technical knowledge in the process of research. Thanks to the members of Wikipedia for their ingenuity in their Evil encyclopedia.

CONTENTS Number Page Glossary..........................................................................................................32 Introduction....................................................................................................34 Evil.................................................................................................................35 Irony of Evil...................................................................................................36 Why is evil regarded more profoundly..........................................................37 Slight Interjection..........................................................................................38 Summary........................................................................................................38 [Page numbers may vary depending on the format, the numbering for the contents is designed for the google docs standard.]

GLOSSARY Diametrically: (with reference to opposition) completely; directly. Impersonal: not influenced by, showing, or involving personal feelings. Apparitions: a ghost or ghostlike image of a person. Perplexing: completely baffling; very puzzling. Periditon: state of eternal punishment and damnation into which a sinful and unrepentant person passes after death. Erroneous: wrong; incorrect. Monottheitisc: relates to or is characterized by the belief that there is only one God. Disposition: a person's inherent qualities of mind and character. Negative cognitive bias: acognitive bias that results in adverse events having a more significant impact on our psychological state than positive events. Nucleated: formed or gathered around a central area. Hysteria: emotionally charged behavior that seems excessive and out of control Metaphysical: an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception. Sacrosanct: inviolable, immune from criticism or violation.

Primitive: very basic or unsophisticated in terms of comfort, convenience, or efficiency. Ethos: is used to refer to the practices or values that distinguish one person, organization, or society from others. Methodical: done according to a systematic or established procedure Subordinate: lower in rank or position. Deliberation: long and careful consideration or discussion. Emotional blind spot: the obstructed view of an emotional area in a person's life. It can often be something a person is unaware of or something they've chosen to ignore. Often the behavior becomes habitual and normalized. Egoistic: being centered in or preoccupied with oneself and the gratification of one's own desires; self-centered (opposed to altruistic). Antagonistic duality: belief that the world is ruled by a pair of antagonistic forces, such as good and evil; the belief that man has two basic natures, the physical and the spiritual. Binary: relating to, composed of, or involving two things. Physiological shadow: an unconscious aspect of the personality that does not correspond with the ego ideal, leading the ego to resist and project the shadow Peril: serious and immediate danger.

INTRODUCTION In my philosophy, the Irony of Evil is a moral dilemma that is presented when tackling the questions of structure and hierarchy in an evil group or society. The irony of evil can be defined as the paradox, which exists due to the contradicting moral ordinances which evil needs to survive, yet is diametrically opposite to its true nature and therefore cannot exist in a truly evil world. For example, a gang that many people see as evil, and affiliates who commit atrocious and horrendous crimes, still needs the virtues of loyalty, honesty, and comradeship to their gang, in order for it to exist and not break apart. This though, is contradictory, because if the gang was truly evil then people would be treasonous or betray one another, lie and practice deceit and be defective of any form of positive relationship which would lead to the downfall and eradication of the gang. So in this case, goodness is needed in evil in order for it to survive, or in other words, the ‘Irony of Evil’. Later on, these concepts will be discussed but first, an introduction to evil and the defining of key terms and details are needed to proceed onto the main philosophy of ‘Irony of Evil’.

Chapter 1 ` EVIL Evil generally can be defined as the opposite or absence of good, although it's broadly defined yet has a more narrowed use, its main concept is one of profound wickedness and against a coherent common good. These said evils can be implemented in a religious sense through the supernatural and demonic spirits, apparitions and satanic-figures. It can also be used to describe natural or impersonal evils, those which are done by the world around us, such as natural disasters and forms of pestilence but also human-caused moral evils which are characterized by societal or individual wickedness perpetuated by people across a spectrum of evils. Evil is synonymous with feelings of pain, suffering and profound immorality. Its adversities lead to destruction, neglect, and physiological damage, and henceforth lead to widespread peril and suffering. To look at it more religiously, evil is described as an antagonistic duality, which is poised binary to good, and is often depicted as in conflict or in a struggle to bid dominance and assert control over the masses’ moral compass. Evil could also be interpreted as more of a man-made phenomenon that people project onto others due to the result of a collective identity. and is often done in bids to relinquish one's physiological ‘shadow’, which may be defined as an unconscious aspect of one's personality which does not necessarily fit with the egoistic ideals of oneself, this itself leads to a continuum where individuals project their self’s emotional blind spot onto in an effort to remove this said perceptive insecurity. Evils range in severity and can take on multiple forms as previously discussed. The main, moral, natural and supernatural evils are the main ones and are attributed to the existence of evil in our observable world. Some individuals think that the idea of evil is more of a constructed, customary belief that has been done through all cultures and different realms in history and does not actually exist but more or less is a term used to describe the general feeling or sentiment of a sort of evil. Others also think the existence of evil is intangible and is simply the outcome of believing in metaphysical reality, where evil only exists to fulfill the ideation or precedents set by man and spiritual beliefs. As there is no explicit quantification or deliberation of the world of evil, its existence to many groups of individuals is not sacrosanct enough to be taken with enough rationality. As though its traits and effects are present in our worlds, the concept itself does not actually exist in any fundamental form if you take it literally leading to skepticism and doubt amongst skeptics. In more concise terms, evil is an illusionary moral concept that does not exist in nature and its connotations are more or less the results of our primitive and relative outlooks on reality. This is why evil will never be scientifically justifiable.

Chapter 2 IRONY OF EVIL Now that the basic ethos of evil has been discussed, what exactly leads to the formation or occurrence of ‘Irony of evil’? In any evil or morally corrupt establishments, people tend to be evil. This is not alarming considering that the whole nature of these societies or congregations is simply to cause or to benefit from the satisfaction which evil provides. However, these systems need some form of order, leadership and virtues in order to survive and not be totally disordered and scattered. If there is nothing in place to manage and order the members of any said evil society, it would be dissolved and be strenuous to go through with any further developments or future growth. However, these presumed virtues are what you could characterize as ‘good virtues’, such as honesty, love, compassion and loyalty are critically needed by these evil societies because without them people would become too savage for methodical governance and the evils would implode on itself. The irony in this is that goodness is needed for evil to survive while goodness doesn't necessarily need evil to survive even though they are in a state of antagonistic duality, when usually people weigh both good and evil on the same level or perceive them to have the same effect on people. So looking at it from this viewpoint, it illustrates that both forces are not equally weighted, but in fact evil is inferior to goodness in every single scenario. It's so ironic to think that evil, the all-powerful, domineering force that makes everyone uneasy, nervous and frightened is somehow subordinate to goodness; something people depict is rare and fragile in such a cruel and heartless world. Without goodness, evil still could survive, yet it would be highly unstructured and inefficient because the virtues it needs are simply void in this scenario. Let's take the example of gangs we had before, imagine gangs that were disloyal, showed no compassion and failed to be honest with each other, imagine how stagnant it would be, how much more dangerous and terrifying it would be to simply exist in these evil ecosystems. The level of hysteria and sheer destruction would be so immense that large-scale organized gangs in themselves won't even exist anymore, but simply be smaller, nucleated groups of rouge individuals, fending for themselves in a highly hostile criminal environment. Although this might be the case in many places around the world, where individual offenders go on to commit crimes that are later blamed on other criminal organizations, generally these gangs commit most of the concurrent crimes in society are purportedly related to these organizations, and without these guiding principles, them in itself would simply cease to exist

Chapter 3 WHY IS EVIL REGARDED MORE PROFOUNDLY If evil in this manner has been proved to be a lesser force than goodness, why exactly do we see evil as being the more grappling force in our everyday lives? Why can't we recognize goodness more than the comparatively insignificant evils which play out in our distressing world? One of the many answers to this question is the perceptive instinct we have towards evil. We have simply become accustomed to expecting goodness and viewing it as something we fundamentally deserve and need. Whenever something bad or evil comes up, people are especially hurt not just because of the physical and mental damages it inflicts, but also just the untimeliness or unexpectedness of the moral tragedy. Most people don't go out every day expecting to be shot or run over, get into a car crash or be poisoned, murdered or be assaulted, yet these happen randomly, seemingly without any cause or explanation, every single day to people who otherwise had no reason to be in such situations. Yet because these evils are just so unforeseen, committed without a sense of notice or medium of indication, the effect of these evils is tremendous, and is why media outlets tend to focus on the negative and more shocking news compared to the more optimistic and hopeful ones. Do charities get as much attention as mass shootings even if they make a bigger impact? That can be an answer to such a baffling question. Now while there are other reasons for the more supposedly profound impact of evil, such as negative cognitive bias, other neurological reasons, and moral arguments which I'm not interested in addressing here, the main focus is on why we can be deceived when we see evil as more of a dominant force in the moral dynamics of ethics. Others may oppose this viewpoint with similar but convincing arguments to show why evil is actually more dominant than good, but simply the presence of this irony serves as a good countermeasure or undefiable argument against the more flawed notion that in fact, evil is superior to goodness.

Chapter 4 SLIGHT INTERJECTION Something that does wonder me is how exactly, from a theological perspective the hell-bound principalities function in their day-to-day mischievous and wicked affairs. Hell is described in most religious texts as a place starved of God(s)’s love and goodness meaning that it's simply a playground for whatever morally indecent practices these devils and wicked spirits desire. Is rule simply by fear or by the agreed consensus that opting for something that resembles goodness disposition is more beneficial than simply being brute evil? But then again, if this is a place full of true evils, where no goodness exists and perdition is final, would order even need to be in place, as there is literally no incentive to work out of this situation as it’s eternal punishment. But also if this order is in place, why exactly has it not collapsed on itself due to the sheer nature of evil being unreliable? From a secular viewpoint, these questions may be dismissed or deemed erroneous since there is a lack of belief in the premise to begin with, I see them as intriguing questions that need to be asked when on the matter of damnation theology, which plays an important role in most monotheistic religions. SUMMARY Evil can be moral evils, committed and attributed by people but can also be impersonal or natural evils, which prevail due to the design of the natural world. Evil can lead to destruction, neglect, and physiological damage, and henceforth lead to widespread peril and suffering of the masses. Evil can be the result of individuals projecting their psychological ‘shadow’, or in other words, exerting their insufficiencies which do not align with the egoistic ideals.’ The ‘Irony is evil’ can be described as a situation where good qualities are implemented into evil groups or factions in order to keep them alive, creating a sort of dilemma and a clear irony. While evil does exist binary to goodness, it needs goodness in order to survive meaning that it's inferior or a lesser force to goodness all the while goodness doesn't instinctively need evil to survive. Evil in literal terms does not exist and can be seen as a result of people's arbitration in understating the world on a more metaphysical or simply curious scale. Evil may be channeled as being more of a powerful force due to the deceptive perception and our accustomed to goodness, and the irony of evil can be seen in criminal organizations. A perplexing question for theologians may be in a place of pure evil(hell), how would order or good virtues exist, and if they do exist, why exactly would it?

THYSIAISM by [Micheal Kobi Onwuazo] An independent paper concerning moral philosophy [Philosophy]

Wednesday 20th of July 2022 2022 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express indebtedness to Jeremy Bentham who gave partial inspiration for this paper as well as third-party sites who helped tremendously with their familiarity and technical knowledge in the process of research. Thanks to the members of Wikipedia for their ingenuity in their utilitarianism and Sacrifice encyclopedia.

CONTENTS Number Page Glossary.......................................................................................................................42 Introduction.................................................................................................................44 Sacrifice ……………..................................................................................................45 Thysiaism....................................................................................................................46 Utilitarianism..............................................................................................................47 Summary.....................................................................................................................48 [Page numbers may vary depending on the format, the numbering for the contents is designed for the google word standard.]

GLOSSARY Conjectural: theoretical but based without evidence Economize: spend less; reduce one's expenses. Egoist: preoccupied with his own interests; a selfish person. a conceited person; egoist. Self-transcendence: a personality trait that involves the expansion of personal boundaries, including, potentially, experiencing spiritual ideas such as considering oneself an integral part of the universe. Self-forfeit: to lose or lose the right to, especially by some error, offense, or crime: but done willingly by the individual on their own terms. Supremacy: the state or condition of being superior to all others in authority, power, or status. Corporeal: relating to a person's body, especially as opposed to their spirit. Deleterious: causing harm or damage. Cataclysmic: (of a natural event) large-scale and violent. Extraneous: irrelevant or unrelated to the subject being dealt with; something external Altruism: disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others. Inclination: natural tendency or urge to act or feel in a particular way; a disposition. Concurrent: existing, happening, or done at the same time.

Consequentialist: following as a result or effect. Populist: a person, especially a politician, who strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups. Utility: the state of being useful, profitable, or beneficial. Abject: (of something bad) experienced or present to the maximum degree. Monolithic: (of an organization or system) large, powerful, indivisible, and slow to change. Oligarchy: a small group of people having control of a country or organization. Egalitarianism: a position which advocates or supports the principle of equality for all people. Hysteria: a term often used to describe emotionally charged behavior that seems excessive and out of control. Mythological: is related to a fable, legend, or another traditional story. In real life they are non-existent. Aristocracy: a form of government that places strength in the hands of a small, privileged ruling class, the aristocrats. Regression: a return to a former or less developed state. Dissidence: protest against official policy. Utilitarianism: an ethical theory that holds that the most ethical choice is the one that will produce the greatest good for the greatest number.

INTRODUCTION Thysiaism is the philosophy that is centered around the belief that someone's happiness is always derived at the expense of another individual. This may not seem to always play out as people indirectly benefit from something while making someone suffer in the process but it is all the while true in every conjectural situation. This could range from minuscule amounts of distress to causing exceeding immense loads of pain and suffering, sometimes without the receiving participant knowing, other times it is fully intentional. The term ‘Thysiaism’ comes from the Greek word ‘thysía’ (θυσία) which means sacrifice. From another perspective, it could also be a mutual consensus to give up someone else's contentment in order for whomever else to profit off of such an irredeemably but mostly positive form of self-forfeit. Such phenomena can be seen when parents may choose to refrain or willingly starve themselves, possibly even economize on their own welfare to keep children more healthy and happy, as seen in the droughts and consequent famines in Afghanistan, where men would donate their kidneys in order to afford for the continual survival of their families. This is a more selfless and warmhearted form of thysiaism but usually, I would see thysiaism play out in a more wicked and egoist manner on a regular basis. Where people simply seek to obtain happiness without thinking about the adverse effects it has on other individuals, or whether or not their negative externalities cause complications outside their perceived ‘realm of influence’, such as the environment and so on. These themes will be discussed more extensively as we proceed, but firstly I would like to talk about sacrifice to better clarify the philosophy as we continue onwards.

Chapter 1 SACRIFICE Sacrifice can be defined as the idea tied down to a sentiment of self-transcendence, in which an individual sacrifices their own personal interests for the sake of a higher purpose. While this is great in many aspects, this can be used to justify immoral acts. People may lean towards human sacrifice as people or a community may deem it as for a higher purpose such as for religious or spiritual practices. The Aztecs sacrificed people to Huitzilopochtli (the god with warlike aspects) in honor of the Sun-God. The victim would be cut through the abdomen with an obsidian or flint blade. The heart would be torn out still beating and held towards the sky in such a brutal and horrific manner. Even though this serves a higher purpose, we can see that this sacrifice harms the person involved to an extremely excruciating extent, torturing a poor and sometimes unwilling victim into being tortured to death to appease a mythological deity constructed in the minds of the knowledgeably primitive Aztecs. So in this regard, not all sacrifices are wholesome or done in true self-compassion, but simply can be authorized out of human confusion, rashness, to which a society pertains to groundless spiritual practices and the likes. In contrast, sacrifices can also be seen as a more socially optimal practice, such as sacrifice in war, politics and social commitments. Politicians may choose to sacrifice their own personal supremacy where it may be deemed it should be evermore impersonal, their involvement over parts of government they shouldn't intrinsically or legally have access to, such as the legal system, or even their position when they feel it is necessary or when the public demands for it. In war, soldiers may nobly give up their lives to serve their nation due to their entrenched feeling of patriotism and loyalty to the ruling government or party involved. And most notably, in social commitments, we see loving partners giving up their own corporeal comfort in order to better cheer or console their grieving or afflicted companion. Families may give up some of their own income to donate to charities, or further their children's education or livelihood, and friends may choose to skip doing activities more gratifying to them to spend time with their other colleagues merely because they care and appreciate them more than their respective more gratifying affairs and would rather pick them even if they are less immediately substantial compared to their alternative activities. So while sacrifice varies in forms and function, there is a general discernment by our society between the more evil and righteous manifestations of sacrifice and is generally purported to be more beneficial. So why exactly can thysiaism be a problem?

Chapter 2 THYSIAISM Thysiaism as defined before is the belief that someone else’s happiness is acquired at the expense of another individual. Since sacrifice is always innately deleterious to whoever undergoes it, whether they are proactively doing something sacrificial or simply abstaining, either way, there is some form of affliction undergone by whoever willingly or unwillingly chooses to be a part of the practice. This means that someone else will always have to incur harm in order to benefit another individual, and this complication really deteriorates when this kind of sacrifice is non-consensual. People who are forced into giving up their livelihoods, occupations, position, sense of security, family and other essential aspects of their lives in order to appease another more fortunate, well-off and affluent person is simply abominable yet every day this occurs on a colossal scale where people often unwillingly participate in this kind of cruel exchange. Consumers in the developed world who buy products from untrusted sources, those who are more steeply free trade in nature, or goods from enterprises with gross human rights records all contribute to the long-suffering of whoever ultimately produces these products. Child laborers have to give up their education in order to work in plantations, the poor are forced into squatter conditions and sweatshops in Bangladesh and India, and modern slavery in developing countries in the mining and agricultural sectors, common in places like Erteiria, Burundi, Pakistan and wearyingly China. Men are regularly forced to give up their jobs in order to serve a cataclysmic military for extraneous wars that has nothing to do with them; against many people's desire to remain pacifist. Sacrifice is not just limited to humans. Animal testing for cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, pesticides and insecticides, and industrial chemicals, where animals are subjected to immense amounts of pain to return results that will be used to improve the lives of humans, who are more positively hierarchically positioned relative to our animal companions. Even if these kinds of sacrifices on animals do ultimately benefit people more than it seems to ache animals, that kind of sacrifice still needs to take place in order to satisfy our desires, whether necessary or more materialistic inclinations. This concurrent problem only seems to invalidate the selflessness or theme of altruism which plays out when people choose to sacrifice something immensely special to them in order to achieve a higher purpose. It doesn't seem like there's any immediate remedy to this problem, people will continue to sacrifice willingly and unwillingly for someone else's happiness, and this in itself, when it's cordial is for the most part not a problem, but the real issue is how do we prevent people from involuntarily having to make

sacrificial concessions with things utmost importance to them, under coercion or other forms duress simply to make someone else's life more gratifying or to further cherish their happiness? Chapter 3 UTILITARIANISM Utilitarianism is a philosophical viewpoint and a consequentialist theory that advocates actions that foster happiness and oppose actions that cause unhappiness. Utilitarianism promotes the “greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people.” It's a more populist theory as it promotes the most amount of utility for the greatest variety and amount of individuals, not just the most affluent, desired or on the other side of the spectrum, those most impoverished, more empathized with or struggling. The outreach of this approach is the greatest out of all ways of thinking of happiness and resource distribution and if we adopt this way of thinking when it comes to thysiaism, where peoples suffering in abject poverty have no other choice but to give up their happiness due to their inequitable circumstances, illicit work, and unfavorable social standing would greatly benefit these group of people and the wider society in general. When adopted, these people would be treated more leniently and their overall satisfaction would be increased as they would retain many aspects they previously would have had to give up in exchange for another person capitalizing at their expense. However, an issue with this is that those who had been previously profiting from these one-sided transactions would be at loss for resources and happiness as they would be distributed more fairly. This would lead to these ‘monolithic oligarchs'’ demands being less afforded to an even fairer to society. Equality always is a loss for those at the top of the hierarchy, and the more prosperous individuals act as tributaries for money to flow back to them in this lucrative social pyramid. Many of these wealthy people could lay siege to protest or find the manner in which to suppress or stop the progression of this egalitarian utilitarianism used to preserve the status quo and prevent themselves from losing their excess gratification; hysteria may have been a factor in this too of possibly being abdicated from their place at the apex of society. And generally speaking, since the rich are far more influential than the working class, their efforts most likely will not go in vain and actually lead to the social regression we optimally do not want. However, as seen in the successful peasant rebellions against the medieval aristocracy, power truly is held and resonates in people as long as there is enough determination to fight the unfair practices and methodology of any given society; even against the most rigid power structures. In this respect,

the dissidence from this thysiaism is possible if people collectively are willing to fight against these highly extractive funneling systems of unfair labor practices to optimize society’s happiness. CONCLUSION A sacrifice is an act of self-transcendence and reducing one’s personal salience for a greater or more selfless cause. This is not necessarily an issue if done consensually but in many cases, these are involuntary sacrifices people are forced to commit under duress or coercion. Thysiaism is the belief that one’s happiness is always derived from another joy, whether done unintentionally or the latter. A solution or slight remedy to this kind of concurrent issue is a utilitarianist approach, where people's needs and desires are in some capacity met without the same cost to the producers or the less fortunate individuals' welfare. However, this problem will continue to play out even with the best intentions and approaches so it's imperative that people try to limit their negative externalities to the people who essentially are the step stones of their comfort, as real joy is not made on another suffering.

GNOSISM by [Micheal Kobi Onwuazo] An independent paper concerning epistemology [Philosophy]

Monday 8th of August 2022 2022