Modern Romanticism

To tell those who deal with reality that their questioning of it has any merit is only because the one who speaks of such “merit” is someone who stands on the sidelines to observe suffering. Reality is only ever questioned by those who either observe it without being affected by it, or by those who are affected and tormented by it because they want it to change.

Take an example of a person who is dealing with recent tragic loss. A loss of a loved one, that is. Their questioning of such a reality of death, of what they cannot change, is because of denial. They are within the first stage of grief, being denial, and the final stage of grief, being acceptance, will be when they have learned that their experienced reality is fixed. They’ll question reality through the questions that begin with the words “why” and “how”, while such questions can never be answered. They cannot be answered because asking someone, anyone, why their loved one died implies that whoever is receiving this question must have the answer. But who can answer such a loaded question if they’re not someone special? Because if their answer differs from someone else’s answer to such an unanswerable question, this is why that question remains unanswerable. It is as unanswerable of a question as the reality of their loss will remain unchangeable.

Those who do not deal with the torment of asking unanswerable questions are questioning reality perhaps because it is as amusing of a thing to do as hurling rocks at a hornet’s nest. Both acts remain a sideline activity. Consequence is not within the mind of a person who does anything from the sidelines. A simple observer wants to see what happens, and they’ll share their gospel of “questioning reality” even to people who are tormented by what they want to see changed.

There are realities that cannot be changed, and that is for acceptance’s sake. However, if someone deems something that they’re observing, not experiencing, as actually changeable or improvable, it will be an enforced change. Meaning, as it has been given belief that it can be changed, the idea of enforcement is because an idealist is someone who considers their views the correct one. This is the same as if a grieving person might actually want their unanswerable questions about their loss to be answered, only for an idealist who believes their way or answer to be correct to provide that grieving person with an answer.

Something being observed, especially by someone on the sidelines who has been marked as an idealist, might receive change in its forceful type. Such a type of change gets enforced with lawmaking or scientific design in mind. Can a person bring back the dead? Can a person, who was once in a romantic relationship with someone else, force the latter back into their lives? No. But an idealist, whether they’re scientific or not, will still think of a way to make that happen.

Idealists are nothing without forcefulness, under the guise of revolution, being in every one of their speeches and actions. This means that the only natural path towards change will be having to do with oneself. Through this natural act of change, one first realizes the reality of what cannot be changed. After accepting such reality, an individual molds their future through what remains. “What remains” is everything an individual embraces to change themselves. For everything else will deal with force, and this force is almost always applied to external aspects. What remains will be for an individual to use from the world to benefit themselves. Whereas applying force on the world is because of an incessant questioning and a refusal to accept what no longer remains.