It doesn't move the same for everyone. To speed it up, to live a month in 24 hours, simply put more cause into effect. If someone on your team does 100 messages a day, and you do 200, you've lived 48 hours in his 24. This is how the exponential gap that separates men is created. You have to CONSTANTLY be doing, moving, creating. Even moving at a steady pace isn't good enough. Because there are people out there who aren't, so you're falling behind. You're either spiraling up or spiraling down.

In most classrooms, the student is presented with a carefully curated narrative: a theory is stated, an experiment is performed, and the outcome is said to “confirm” what was already dictated. This is not science. It is ritual. It is a scripted performance designed not to uncover reality but to validate the authority of those who dictate the theory. The inversion is striking: the tools of empirical investigation — beakers, electrodes, thermometers, balances — are repurposed from instruments of discovery into instruments of compliance. The student is no longer a discoverer; the student becomes an actor, executing a preordained choreography in which success is measured not by insight but by obedience. Consider the common example of electrolysis in a high school laboratory. Students are given a theoretical description of water splitting into hydrogen and oxygen, then instructed to construct a simple apparatus: two electrodes in water with an applied current. Bubbles rise, gas is collected, and occasionally a flame confirms that “hydrogen burns, oxygen supports combustion.” The ritual is complete: the experiment validates the teacher’s authority. The reality of what occurs — the tactile sensation of bubbles, the behavior of gases, the heat, the ignition — is secondary. Observation is subordinated to a narrative. This is not harmless pedagogy. It is a systemic reinforcement of epistemic authority. By dictating theory first, schools train students to prioritize confirmation over discovery, to value the written word above sensory evidence, to see experimentation as a ceremonial act rather than a means of interrogation. Knowledge becomes hierarchical: the authority of theory is unquestionable, while first-hand observation is merely supplementary. A truly descriptive approach would invert this ritual. It would start with the phenomena: bubbles forming at electrodes, the sound and heat of ignition, the rising gas, the displacement of water. Only after careful, repeated observation would labels or tentative explanations emerge — and these labels would be provisional, descriptive, and accountable to evidence. This is the method of trial-and-error empiricism, the method that predates formalized chemistry and physics: observe first, name second.

The reason why I became a stoic is because of the practices and virtues that it has that Christianity does not have anymore in my option. But I am very glad to join Project Stoic due to that fact I believe that I will go much further as a Stoic Innovator than being stuck in a Dead loop of Declining Chirstianity.

Hello! Welcome to the Practical Philosophy Community! The goal of this community is to help philosophers and deep thinkers gain confidence and become better leaders by using philosophy to “know thyself.” Start by checking out these links - Build Your Own Practical Philosophy community  - Learn the Foundations of Stoicism  - Read the 10 Immutable Laws of the Universe Book  To kick things off, please comment below introducing yourself. Let us know: 1. Your name 2. What project or philosophy you're currently pondering See you in the comments! PS. Skool communities are the future of online communities. If you're looking to start your own, please use this affiliate link to that. It won't cost you any extra, but instead of all your money going to Sam Ovens and Alex Hormozi, half will go to them and half will go to me, which helps fund Project Stoic content!