“To suggest that our world shows itself as deranged, full of problems with other mounting inconsistences, will turn out, most often, to be a display of negligence to those affected by such faults. In focusing on a problem, we neglect those affected by a problem. However, if we accept this world as full of problems, our better route comes down to aiding those who have already accepted themselves as a part of their own problem.”– Modern Romanticism
Activists will say it, that our world holds many faults. Our world, not a person attracted to said faults; because, to focus on a victim as a problem seems against their problem, as if meaning to separate victim from problem. Why has that become separate? External faults are not stagnant. They become magnets to attract others to them, usually out of incorrect choices under that same will or freedom a person holds, with a necessity to hold themselves accountable. If we state that everyone has been victimized, in some fashion, we are separating fault from person as if to mean a victim can be viewed as perfect, while external faults are all demons.
Whenever an activist will state this, that our world, not a person, shows error, they will contradict this statement when their tactics of problem-solving ever go to focus on person, not problem. If person, not problem, becomes their focus, it had been person, not problem, that had been a problem. Although, this creates true compassion, that in knowing to not be negligent requires focus on those affected by negative circumstance, an activist has more an understanding on sociology. While psychology will comprehend an individual, sociology will comprehend external grounds. To not be negligent means to always focus on a person, or an individual. To be negligent means to focus on our world, of its faults, instead of those affected by those problems.
How can one be compassionate, without realizing what defines an error? As humanity resembles sheer imperfection, always by what connects people together, being wounds and hurt, no empathy can surround focus on external problems. As empathy goes to define itself, seeing internal fault will be of it, as sociology will not be for it. How can a focus on external fault represent a compassion, ever extending to a person, when empathy compares always to internal imperfection or error?
No focus on external problems can be of compassion. Though, seeing a person as problematic, enough to change their psychology in one’s empathy to turn them down different roads, shows this compassion. Through being empathetic, we cannot assume. We know. We have that knowledge, because we have been there down that incorrect avenue to recognize its negative outcomes. If an activist sees all problems in our world, an activist will not ever focus on steering a person apart from their improper decisions, without contradicting their entire doctrine. An activist will not aid a person, though will present themselves as meant to absolve this world of its problems, perhaps with an underlying intent for there to be no more need for empathy nor humanity.
In focusing on what might be wrong of an individual, that person can be aided enough to make correct choices. From an empathetic connection, we recognize a person. To that person, it can be known, through an empathetic connection, that they have been helped when we did not commit to tasks they must learn to do. We have merely showed them a path, through displaying examples of betterment out of what we, before knowing them, had understood.