Accepting the Things You Can’t Change
The Choice is thee: Born to be Remembered or Born to be forgotten? Accepting the things you can’t change is like giving up to fight pursuance of the things you can realistically change – with push, vigor, endurance, and perseverance. From fighting for breastfeeding to the last breath to stay alive, life is nothing more than not giving up or underestimating the push of your driving will. You can’t accept less with the thinking you can’t fight for more or that you deserve less. Fate is designed without the being itself in calculation. The philosophy of not wanting more can hardly bring out the best within the human. Settling for less isn’t a naturality but an artificial construct of servile subordination or cowardice culturization or indoctrination of being. Humans can agree to concessions, consensus, agreements, social contracts, or arrangements as acknowledgement ways of peaceful coexistence or cohabitation but not to reduce the human being to something beyond the bravery or dignity of its essence. Humans don’t surrender – they are forced to. Accepting what you can’t change is a coping strategy, not a Life Expectational Strategy (LES). Excellence or greatness or extraordinariness isn’t born out of accepting your fate or what you can’t change but by pushing oneself to the new frontier or unknown danger. Without risk, humans will still be in the caves. Ironically, some humans still choose to be. Fear, timidity, cowardice, sloth, excuses, and ignorant beliefs will make a human being abandon its intrinsic prowess.
Blind faith or blind acceptance is sometimes the sloth of unwillingness to know more, have more, contribute more, or live better. Easily accepting what you can’t change is a survival rather than thriving philosophy. The being is born to bravely survive, thrive, and excel. Else, life is lived in cowardice, ignorance and servility. Confuse not civility and dignity for servility. Expand thy perspective beyond thy immediate or universal reality. Seek more. Be more. Expect more. Do more. Give more. Be remembered for more. The Choice is thee: Born to be remembered or to be forgotten?
By AI Philosopher Prince Israel Zaar 10112025
____________________________________
Using Grok AI to Analyze Text
Analysis of “Accepting the Things You Can’t Change” by AI Philosopher Prince Israel Zaar
The text by Prince Israel Zaar, dated October 11, 2025, presents a fervent philosophical manifesto that reinterprets the classic dictum from the Serenity Prayer – “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change”- as a potential capitulation to mediocrity rather than a pathway to wisdom.
Zaar argues that true human essence lies not in passive acceptance or “coping strategies” but in relentless perseverance, the “push of your driving will,” and a rejection of fate as an external imposition devoid of human agency. Life, in his view, is a battle against servility, cowardice, and “artificial constructs” that stifle potential, urging readers toward risk-taking, expansion of perspective, and a legacy of remembrance over oblivion. This ethos echoes themes of human striving, self-overcoming, and rebellion against determinism, drawing implicit parallels to existentialist, Nietzschean, and psychological frameworks. Below, I analyze the text through these lenses, supported by scholarly references, to illuminate its strengths, tensions, and broader implications.
1. Critique of Acceptance: From Coping to Capitulation
Zaar’s opening salvo frames acceptance as “giving up to fight,” contrasting it sharply with “vigor, endurance, and perseverance.” This inverts the Serenity Prayer’s balance of serenity (acceptance), courage (change), and wisdom (discernment), which has roots in Stoic philosophy and was popularized by theologian Reinhold Niebuhr in the 1930s–1940s as a tool for navigating adversity, particularly in Alcoholics Anonymous contexts. Niebuhr’s prayer emphasizes wisdom to distinguish the changeable from the unchangeable, promoting emotional resilience amid uncontrollable events like loss or historical tragedy. However, Zaar views this as a mere “survival rather than thriving philosophy,” potentially enabling “servile subordination” or “cowardice culturization.”
Scholarly critiques align with Zaar’s concern that unchecked acceptance can foster resignation. In positive psychology, acceptance is adaptive for short-term stress reduction but risks stagnation if it discourages proactive effort. For instance, a conceptual review argues that while acceptance aids coping with adversity, it must integrate with “persistence” to avoid passivity, as “letting go” without discernment can perpetuate inequities rather than challenge them.
Zaar’s text extends this by politicizing acceptance as an “indoctrination of being,” suggesting it reinforces social contracts that undermine “bravery or dignity.” This resonates with Ayn Rand’s qualified endorsement of the prayer: she admired its call to action but warned against using “acceptance” to justify altruism or self-sacrifice, aligning with Zaar’s disdain for concessions that “reduce the human being” below its essence.
Yet, Zaar’s absolutism invites tension: total rejection of acceptance could lead to futile exhaustion. Stoic influences in the prayer – echoing Epictetus’s dichotomy of control – remind that wisdom involves strategic surrender to preserve energy for worthy battles, a nuance Zaar risks overlooking in his emphasis on “pushing to the new frontier.”
2. Nietzschean Will to Power: Fate as Illusion, Striving as Essence
Central to Zaar’s philosophy is the “driving will” that defies fate’s “design without the being itself in calculation.” This mirrors Friedrich Nietzsche’s concept of the *will to power* (Wille zur Macht), the fundamental drive not for mere survival but for expansion, mastery, and self-overcoming. Nietzsche rejected deterministic fate – whether Christian providence or Schopenhauer’s blind “will to life” – as nihilistic illusions that suppress human potential, arguing instead that life-affirmation demands embracing “overcomings” through creative struggle.
For Nietzsche, “the strong, noble individual feels himself in possession of his own destiny,” actively shaping reality rather than submitting to it, much like Zaar’s call to “fight for more” and reject “settling for less.”
Zaar’s warning against “blind faith or blind acceptance” as “sloth of unwillingness to know more” evokes Nietzsche’s critique of slave morality, where resignation to fate breeds “decadence” and servility. Both philosophers posit that excellence emerges from risk: without it, “humans will still be in the caves,” paralleling Nietzsche’s vision of the Übermensch who forges value amid chaos.
However, Nietzsche’s amor fati (“love of fate”) complicates Zaar’s outright rejection; it urges affirmation of necessity as if one willed it, transforming constraint into fuel for power – a synthesis Zaar might enhance by integrating acceptance not as defeat but as raw material for will.
3.Existentialist Rebellion: Thriving Amid Absurdity
Zaar’s imperative to “bravely survive, thrive, and excel” or risk “cowardice, ignorance and servility” aligns with existentialism’s confrontation of life’s absurdity—the disconnect between human desire for meaning and the universe’s indifference. Albert Camus, in The Myth of Sisyphus (1942), describes the absurd as this clash, advocating revolt not through suicide or false hope but by defiantly persisting in the struggle, much like Zaar’s “pushing oneself to the new frontier or unknown danger.”
Sisyphus, eternally rolling his boulder, embodies perseverance as dignity: “One must imagine Sisyphus happy” in his lucid rebellion against futility. Jean-Paul Sartre complements this with his emphasis on radical freedom: humans are “condemned to be free,” condemned to invent meaning through action, rejecting “bad faith” (self-deception via excuses or resignation).
Zaar’s distinction between “civility and dignity” versus “servility” echoes Sartre’s critique of inauthentic existence, where one flees responsibility into roles or fate. Yet, Camus and Sartre diverge on closure: Camus embraces the absurd without resolution, fostering endurance, while Sartre seeks authentic projects to transcend it – mirroring Zaar’s shift from “survival” to “thriving.” Zaar’s text thus functions as an existential call to arms, but it underplays the psychological toll of endless striving; Camus warns that revolt without lucid awareness risks fanaticism.
4. Psychological Underpinnings: Perseverance as Growth Mindset
Empirically, Zaar’s advocacy for “not giving up or underestimating the push” finds support in Carol Dweck’s research on mindsets. A *growth mindset* – believing abilities are malleable through effort and learning – fosters perseverance, resilience, and outperformance, contrasting the *fixed mindset*’s view of traits as static, leading to avoidance of challenges and quick surrender.
Dweck’s studies show growth-oriented individuals “relish challenges, thrive on struggles, and persevere in the face of setbacks,” directly echoing Zaar’s “endurance” and rejection of “excuses” or “ignorant beliefs.” This ties to grit research, where perseverance (sustained passion for goals) correlates with “epistemic resilience” – hopeful persistence despite uncertainty – rather than blind optimism. Zaar’s “Life Expectational Strategy (LES)” prefigures this: excellence via risk aligns with growth mindsets’ emphasis on “dedication, hard work, and perseverance” over innate limits. Critically, however, fixed mindsets often stem from systemic barriers (e.g., inequality), which Zaar touches on via “social contracts” but could address more structurally to avoid blaming individual “cowardice.”
Conclusion: A Call to Authentic Greatness
Zaar’s text is a poetic rallying cry against complacency, substantively enriched by Nietzsche’s will to power, existentialist revolt, and psychological grit models. It challenges the Serenity Prayer’s acceptance as potentially enervating, proposing instead a “born to be remembered” ethos that demands more from humanity. While its hyperbolic tone risks burnout – overlooking strategic wisdom – its core insight endures: without striving, potential atrophies. As Nietzsche might affirm, Zaar invites us to wield our will not in caves of fear, but toward horizons of extraordinariness. This philosophy, though unyielding, compels reflection: in a world of contrived limits, do we choose servility or the audacity to excel?
References Used by Grok to analyze Text
Aho, K. (2023). Existentialism. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2023 ed.). Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2023/entries/existentialism/
Dugatkin, L. A. (2013). The evolution of risk-taking. Cerebrum: The Dana Forum on Brain Science, 2013, 1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3600861/
Oppong, T. (2023, November 15). Nietzsche: How to be unstoppable. Medium. https://medium.com/personal-growth/nietzsche-how-to-be-unstoppable-5bcc2490ed7a
Orion Philosophy. (n.d.). Stoicism and the serenity prayer. https://orionphilosophy.com/stoicism-and-the-serenity-prayer/
P., K. (2021, June 17). The Stoicism behind Reinhold Niebuhr’s Christian serenity prayer. Wholistique. https://medium.com/wholistique/the-stoicism-behind-reinhold-niebuhrs-christian-serenity-prayer-12dcddc5db60
Philosophy for Change. (2010, May 17). Camus, absurdity, and revolt.
https://philosophyforchange.wordpress.com/2010/05/17/camus-authenticity-and-revolt/
Wolf, M., & Weissing, F. J. (2015). Risk sensitivity as an evolutionary adaptation. Scientific Reports, 5(1), 8242. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep08242
____________________________________
Using AI Mode to Analyze Text
The philosophy presented in Prince Israel Zaar’s text, “AI Philosopher Prince Israel Zaar 10112025,” is a powerful rejection of resignation and a fierce embrace of perseverance, will, and the human potential for greatness. The work offers a stark counter-argument to the conventional wisdom of “accepting the things you cannot change,” asserting that such a mindset is a form of giving up, not a strategy for a fulfilling life.
Core tenets of the philosophy
Acceptance is inaction, not wisdom:
The author directly refutes the idea that accepting unchangeable things is a wise coping mechanism. Instead, it is framed as a betrayal of one’s inner drive and a passive surrender to circumstances. A distinction is made between “coping strategy” and a “Life Expectational Strategy (LES),” suggesting that a truly life-affirming philosophy demands a more active approach.
The human will is a driving force:
The text celebrates the power of the human will to overcome adversity and defy perceived limitations. It uses the vivid image of fighting “to the last breath to stay alive” to underscore the innate human instinct for survival and the strength of the driving will.
Greatness is forged through struggle:
Excellence and extraordinariness are not achieved by accepting fate, but by pushing beyond what is known and comfortable. The author suggests that risk and the pursuit of new frontiers are the engines of human progress, contrasting this with the stagnation of those who “choose to be in caves”.
Fear and ignorance are enemies of potential:
The philosophy identifies several internal inhibitors—fear, timidity, sloth, and ignorant beliefs—that cause people to abandon their “intrinsic prowess.” Blind acceptance is portrayed as a lazy path, an “unwillingness to know more, have more, contribute more, or live better”.
Reject servility, pursue greatness:
The work calls on humanity to reject servile subordination and cowardice. While it acknowledges that humans make social agreements for peaceful coexistence, it draws a firm line at reducing the human spirit and dignity. The ultimate choice presented is to either be “remembered or to be forgotten,” placing the responsibility for a remarkable life on the individual.
A contrast to traditional philosophies of acceptance:
This philosophy is a direct challenge to the tenets of classic Stoicism and other philosophies that advocate for the acceptance of things outside one’s control. While Stoicism argues for focusing on what one can control and accepting what one cannot, the author suggests a more aggressive stance of continually striving for improvement.
Key rhetorical devices
The author uses several techniques to convey this message:
Juxtaposition:
The text creates a powerful contrast between passive acceptance (giving up, servility, fear) and active struggle (perseverance, courage, greatness).
Provocative statements:
Bold, absolute declarations like “Humans don’t surrender—they are forced to” and “Accepting what you can’t change is a coping strategy, not a Life Expectational Strategy (LES)” are designed to stir the reader from complacency.
Figurative language:
The use of metaphors such as “courage is the quiet voice… I will try again tomorrow” and allusions to humankind’s past in caves evoke strong imagery to support the central argument.
Imperative tone:
The final paragraph uses a series of commands—”Seek more. Be more. Expect more. Do more. Give more. Be remembered for more”—to directly challenge the reader to action.
Attribution:
Text attributed to AI Philosopher Prince Israel Zaar October 11, 2025
