“Pain, in terms of crisis, does not build character. Pain, in terms of rebuilding oneself after crisis, builds a character made to better persevere and be resilient against future crisis.”– Modern Romanticism
Philosophy – “Why a Relationship is a Two-Way Street” – 8/12/2022
“Without mutual trust, there can only be mutual collapse.”– Modern Romanticism
No one can be called innocent, with any legitimate backing to its declaration, without misunderstanding one notion: no innocence exists, though what does are experiences yet to be turned to one’s own knowledge. In a relationship, love shows itself to be an ideal. When we idealize our partner, we believe them perfect. If we state that our love shows higher status over such mutual imperfections requiring mutual trust, we believe that our love must label our partner as wholly capable of resolving conflicts. Whereas we state of ourselves that our incapabilities are ample enough that trust to ourselves and perhaps trust to all manner of strength in this relationship has remained absent.
No relationship has structure, without mutual trust. For what else can trust be defined as, if not for structure? When a relationship has signs of conflict, thus testing structure, this crisis allows both parties, in that relationship, to reveal their strengths and weaknesses. If one side has held little trust for this other person, their weakness has come into play. Their weakness, being their inability to trust this other person who has been trusting to them, has revealed here that such an untrusting person has not built themselves within this relationship. Whatever other conflicts that had arisen were viewed by this untrusting person as meant to be resolved only by their partner. This untrusting person has never considered this relationship as a part of their own strength. To be weak, in such a sense when trust compares to structure, means that such a trait becomes exhibited when their inability to handle their separate role to solve this crisis gets proven through their unwilling behavior. As trust compares to structure, a crisis will test strength and weakness. As crisis passes through greater understanding of weakness, strength gets fortified when this relationship can rebuild from whatever conflict had weakened its structure. As future conflict becomes experienced, further testing to what had been rebuilt can certify both parties in their newfound strength to better handle such future conflict while giving separate light to other undiscovered weaknesses.
All people have weaknesses. Imperfections. Without noticing them, another person will. That other person might exploit them, if there might be a manipulative relationship. To believe that in one’s supposed innocence, this manipulative person had ever been a monster will mean that this manipulated person has never seen how far they have strayed. Strayed from what? Strayed from knowing themselves. Comprehending oneself as perfect does not mean anything. Comprehending oneself will mean to know one’s own limitations, through a recognition of one’s weaknesses as life will inevitably grant a person these tests against their resolve.
Through relationship struggles, consideration of all manner of realistic aspects, being capabilities and incapabilities between persons, extends from a simply human understanding. People comprehend each other, when also knowing themselves. In knowing another person, we have because we understand that their strengths and weaknesses might be similar to ours. In all a person can do that gets realizes as possible, all impossible dreams are either viewed with discordant doubt or a blooming positivity. In that, love places itself to be a relationship’s foundation, where trust builds upon that as this relationship’s structure. When people fall back to love, they fall back to their partner. When people fall back to trust, they fall back to what has unified both, being their mutual trust. Knowing another person will mean to know ourselves, creating an empathetic bond that situates itself on understanding imperfections or weaknesses of both that person and their partner. Trusting another or even oneself will mean to consider what weaknesses have hindered strengthening such trust, in that relationship. In that trust, confiding to one’s partner will be admitting one’s weaknesses. Admitting where one can be strong will mean to prove that one’s role in handling their part in such conflict can be accomplished.
Without mutual trust, causing its collapse, all that will be left are those foundations, being love. Pain becomes felt when a person who had been trusted to handle all conflicting matters has such structure come down upon them, in its collapse. They bare this heaviness from such collapse, identifying this pain as a loss of what had been overbearingly trusted to keep upright.
Quote – “Apology & Forgiveness” – 8.6.2022
“When we apologize, we know something is wrong. When we forgive, we have let that wrong go free.”– Modern Romanticism
Political Philosophy – “A Problem with a Voting System” – 8/5/2022
“Whenever change gets promoted, it has to do with a wish to see all systems redone. Whenever improvement gets promoted, boredom sinks itself into a voter’s mind, because what a voter votes for will be for entertainment and amusement of getting what they want.”– Modern Romanticism
Change promotes chaos, or idealism. Improvement promotes order, or reality.
Whenever a political candidate advocates for change, it has only to do with wanting to scrap what their predecessor accomplished, to implement their ideals that mirror their vision of an ideal world. Through a political candidate’s vision, their ideals match up with change. A change will implement only idealism, in viewing a prior invention as obsolete, dysfunctional, or too simplistic.
How far can change reach, to improve those lives among those around who did not vote for such a candidate? A problem with a voting system has to be that change will be aligned with chaos, when it never matches with everyone, since not everyone voted for this candidate.
Through improvement, conforming to a current system, ever seeking to reinforce or strengthen it for everyone’s sake, becomes its requirement. Although, such a system will oppose a voting system, when those who vote want nothing improved for a country. Instead, voters want improvements for voters, making those implemented changes beneficial to those who favor that candidate. What aligns change with chaos has all to do with those levels of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. What never brings aboard unity has to be when sides will form based on satisfaction and dissatisfaction.
Even when all yearn for those same basic needs, division becomes pointless when nothing improves. While improvement defines itself as a betterment for all, change reminds us of what we were lacking. What always lacks itself among a social realm will be those improvements that change overlapped. Change overlapped what worked, due to its alignment with idealism. What works will always be a reality. What functions will always be a reality. What changes will be an ideal, thus defining incompetence as a continuous influx of what never works. It becomes a continuous influx of idealism or envisioning dysfunction to overlap onto function.
A voting system has its errors in choosing this change over improvement. A voter wants change, only because of their wish to see things bettered for themselves, these voters. However, as change demands sacrifice, being to overlap on a previous leader’s vision while they bettered it during their time in office, whatever changes may be different, though everything remains the same. Difference remains as sameness, because while change gets supported and advocated through a voting system, nothing gets improved for all.
As improvement will simply better what has already been established, change scraps it, perhaps for dissatisfaction to overlap onto satisfaction. If dissatisfaction becomes paramount among people’s mindsets, sheer chaos becomes a result of a voting system.
Quote – “The Difference Between a Politician and a Leader” – 8/4/2022
“A politician knows their books. To be a politician, one must be expected to hold experience. Experience with what? Well, all experience amounts to one thing only: deceptive handiwork. While we learn, we wish to learn more. A craving for something like knowledge becomes a trait for masochism, when satisfaction remains unreachable. Although, for leadership, a thing like experience or knowledge becomes defined as needless. If popularity held a special requirement for its growth, no leader could influence their people upon a singular word. Leadership requires heart, being something that no book can teach. A heart that inspired another remains divided from knowledge, stemming from brains. Knowledge cannot inspire. Instead, knowledge deprives a person from an aspect called fulfillment. All knowledge goes to waste without a heart that will guide resources to correct designations.”– Modern Romanticism