Choice – Modern Romanticism

Philosophy – “A Problem with having Choice” – 5/14/2022

“Some argue that choice can be all one needs. Wherever has been an argument to tell everyone that when it comes to doing right, there can be no choice? A choice often falls into a realm, belonging to excuse. Excuse. Escapism. Or a wish to be free, without earning freedom. A desire to rest, while there happens to be work left to finish. With one choice, an absence of choice remains. In knowing where one commits themselves, choice stays with what defines an excuse, being two choices or one choice outside of what has always been one’s correct path.”
– Modern Romanticism

While one has choice, one can be free. This remains true, though has no one referenced over freedom to an element of it being deserved? Indeed, freedom cannot be gifted, unless we limit life to a simple beating heart. Freedom, for a person, becomes earned when we are able to receive something when coursing a path. Down this path, we obtain all things out of our toil. If life can be gifted all nothing more than choice, or freedom, it becomes something pathless. It becomes lost, thus almost always receiving a guidance from someone who grants a life, a path, though retains control over everything to that. In freedom, undeserved, shows that mental form of slavery.

If all a person requests can be endless choices, responsibility will be avoided. A commitment must receive our responsibility. Without commitment, all we are left with remains as choice. Without commitment to life for all it can earn, a choice stays defined as excuse. We are not given choice, any more than we are given opportunity without having been recognized first. If opportunity comes our way without a necessary ingredient as recognition, we are believed to have been gifted choice. However, that will forever be defined as mental slavery.

Mental slavery defines itself as a guidance of those lost, due to a person’s mind not able to cope with their losses, pertaining to life. A person being vulnerable through loss of immaterial value will turn to opportunity displayed as power. One vulnerable person will want for power, as if intending to retain control over potential future immaterial losses or those past ones that haunt this individual among memories. A loss of life becomes a loss of mental soundness, thus bringing on a factor of vulnerability where a person can be gifted choice. This gift’s intention cannot be for this person’s sake to find freedom, through deserving that. This gift’s intention will be to adopt or to find advantage in another’s vulnerability. Through that, this opportunity remains for this manipulator, not for that vulnerable individual.

A choice, when gifted, remains defined as manipulation to a vulnerable person who, in their trauma from loss, holds no understanding to value in an objective sense. When a person, in this vulnerable state, can still believe there are things left valuable to them, this undergoing manipulation upon them becomes proven when one can comprehend what conducts control over a mind. When addiction to power, in some means of escaping being responsible, can override an addict’s view upon what remains as valued, there shows proof within their actions and behaviors. In lost control, their behaviors are found as against their commitment to a value, outside of a manipulative process that controls them. Due to that, their actions show proof of this manipulative process that has gained control over such actions or behaviors, due to this absence of value that interred one potential addict into a vulnerable place of mind. Afterwards, manipulation brings a vulnerable person to discover gifted choice as their place, outside of where such an individual should be responsible.

Philosophy – “A Different Argument against the Pro-Choice Argument” – 4/3/2022

“When choice is a factor for being itself, as the place of knowing it was one thing or another, then what wasn’t chosen is what might or might not be the correct decision, according to another factor, being responsibility. For if we are able to choose, then we are able to be free. However, if we know what must be done, then we have no choice but to do what gears us towards the responsibility that, when beside choice, is not our voice for freedom, or escapism.”
– Modern Romanticism

Deciding on what must be done involves entering into inner dialogue and debate, with the self, upon which is the best course of action. Although, to involve a second choice is automatically the inclusion of choice, itself. If, for example, a person has a sick relative who can only trust that person to take care of them, with no one else share the same level of this faith, then to involve choice with this is to make an excuse for freedom, or escapism’s, sake. It’s to mean that involving choice with the singular goal for what a person knows is correct to do, is to make the escape away from being responsible.

Another example includes a criminal who, through any method available to them, attempts to avoid responsibility of their wrongdoings, simply through the wish for a choice. When a criminal wants to escape from prison, instead of keeping their time in place to contemplate, and even better themselves, over their wrongs, they have embraced choice instead of responsibility.

When we remain wishing to choose, instead of staying upon a straightforward path, then we are simply straying our eyes to look away from what must be held with honesty. If we do not wish to be with our spouse, wanting to involve choice with this by committing infidelity, then we will not admit to them that they are not compatible with us. We will simply do everything in the name of choice, behind their back. More than this, we will make the excuse, and only could it ever be an excuse, that we are doing what is best for ourselves, naming this as “noble”. And we, with firmness to our intentions, state that selfishness could not ever be wrong, all due to the excuse that choice was a benefit.

Indeed, choice resembles freedom. Freedom is good. But often does it occur, when we are trusted to do the right thing, that we will involve choice so that we will begin doing the wrong thing. Even then, we will label wrong as good, as we might state what is ugly is still beautiful.

Lines become blurred. Truth becomes distorted.

When do we begin to state, honesty even to ourselves, that wrong is wrong, while right is right? We know pain, or perhaps we only know our own, when we involve choice to our intentions, in that we do not wish to be alone among it. Humans always feel better, surrounded by those of our own kind, who hold the same motives, the same desires. To that, choice is accompanied, because we are deciding upon what is popular, not what is good for ourselves.

Philosophy – “Why Choice is more the Slave’s Route, than Freedom’s Route” – 9/18/2021

“Were choice to ever compare to freedom, then we’ll always say the tyrant should never be accountable for their decisions. Freedom is deserved, only ever upon the realization for the consequences to such decision-making.”
– Modern Romanticism

We are not free through choice, for that is the route of the slave. A slave does not choose to be free. A slave is meant to be free, because as any life, it is not meant to be imprisoned unless for the purpose of being responsible for wrongdoing. Though, a tyrant would enslave, if through the offering of choice, that to their people would gladly take without question for its source. Just as the desperate addict would not question what the source is to their addiction, nor the businessman so afflicted by greed care for the intent of the one whom their sales are sold to, all is corruption under endless option.

Options do not make the freedom. Instead, accountability for the consequences of any person’s decisions allow the freedom, as such is deserved. Freedom, or rights, are earned, same with life. Life is earned, though a tyrant is not willing to allow it in the same sense as a kidnapper is not allowing freedom for their captive. Those who believe liberation lies in choice, are in fact slaves to the ignorance of outcome.

Philosophy – “Of Pride and Egotism” – 6/5/2021

“An excuse can be set for the matter in which one feels prideful, when one has committed no action for the feeling of it. It would be the foulest of sensations to boast, especially within earshot of those aided, of the noble actions one has taken in the name of self-sacrifice.”
Modern Romanticism

For nobility, one does not take to the gain for the self. For the occurrence of self-sacrifice, one knows its difference from loss. One places themselves, through humility, at the level of those who have lost, to then raise them at the cost of the self. It is to sacrifice, where a person does not lose out of the sensation of grief. One sacrifices, because it was no choice to do so. One does this, because another needed the material substance more than the self.

It is the prideful individual who believes themselves capable of all. It is them who cannot fathom the idea that they cannot be indestructible. For it requires the certain necessity of dropping one’s own pride, to the notion that they require aid. That is individualism, in the finest sense of the word.

Individualism is the swallowing of pride, for the greater sensation to another’s care that one would be relieved by. Though, to prideful sorts, they are not so much to believe they are incapable.

Then, what is a human? Are we not imperfect, enough for the comprehension of it? We are, because to our mistakes, and then in our admittance that we have caused one, is to how we both mature through life’s education of pain. Pain is thus tolerated for the sake of individualist education. Then, it is to the prideful person who must believe they should remain ignorant, never to admit they were wrong of a decision.

How does a person learn, if not willing to sacrifice what was not needed? How does a person know what they need, versus what is a convenience? Humility is the place of self-sacrifice. Whereas, it is pride that will keep to the self, in the notion that one does not deserve the criticism that would deconstruct.

One should be prideful for accomplishment, for this compares to action. Whereas, one should be humble for who one is, in the knowledge that an action can become an excuse to build one’s own ego. When ego builds, a person does not sacrifice. They keep, because they are always afraid to lose.

Paupers are to this regard, as always meaning to keep what is left when they have lost enough. It should then be fathomed of those deemed as victimized for the encouragement of a prideful mindset, that such sorts will never know what it means to learn. Their pride, along with their refusal to admit to their wrongs, cultivates the perpetual state of ignorance even among the chaos in what they feel.

Philosophy – “Why Money cannot Buy Happiness – Same as Love is not a Choice” – 5/29/2021

“The material. It cannot substitute the lack of the immaterial. To anyone who disagrees that love is no choice, it should then be safe to assume they want something as money to be the route to their heart.”
– Modern Romanticism

Is love a game? It is not, objectively speaking. Life is the game, because when it is lost, we leave behind what was more than perhaps the money alongside a will. We can cheat to become free, in the material gain of it. Though, it is not so much the case that we can deceive our way to something earned.

Love is not a game, because it supposes itself as the matter of nothing earned, nor anything cheated to gain. We do not gain love, since we gain respect. We do not earn love, since we earn trust. We cannot fully earn respect, when it is an option to cheat to gain it, just as we can place the same reputation upon ourselves for others to fear us. We cannot gain trust, because deception or cheating is not an option when a lie’s vulnerability is to its exposure.

What would love then be? Since it cannot be earned, nor gained, then it must place itself as the immaterial and invisible non-existence a person is limited to only believing in.

It is to be said that we believe in another, through love, that we might see to the depths of themselves. For truths that were not seen by that individual, masked either by what was cheated to be gained or through deception unto fragile trust, and then we unearth them. We unearth the truths that the external individual had not seen, because perception to the self is always limited.

We trust in God, because we believe in Him. We trust in love, because we believe in it. We merely believe that such exists, because there is no evidence until it is found. When it is discovered, it is for only one time.

Though, it is the material that could purchase evidence through deception, for its gain. It is the material that through a choice, becomes a wrong. Love is no choice, because the material cannot substitute it. If one disagrees, then one is content with turning to addiction after tragedy.

Love is no choice. It is the epitome of all objective correctness, in the universe.

Then, to want a sheer choice, outside of love, either through what is earned or merely obtained, is to excuse oneself away from committing to correctness. It is to have more commitment for fear and simple tolerance, over love and warm acceptance. One corrects, through love, because the imperfections that one perfects is the same for how a person unearths disguised truths within someone else. To perfect an imperfection is to bring to light what was held in darkness, because one should know that the lie is never the human.

Philosophy – “The Importance of Black & White Decisions” – 5/21/2021

“Between choosing what is right or what is wrong comes down to having no choice but the correct one or to have infinite excuses to never make the correct choice.”
– Modern Romanticism

Some would shun away from such a notion that there is “right” or “wrong” within a set of choices. Even if those choices happen to be among the dozens or hundreds, then just like a tournament, it will dwindle down to just two.

No one wishes for a third choice, unless one wants to make an excuse. Out of those two, instinct, in terms of a person’s bravery, would draw them, as the individual, towards what is correct to choose. Out of the hundreds, or thousands, or millions, up to the infinite amount of choices to make, all comes down to a duality. A parallel, of sorts, because to have a decision to make is to exclude distractions and the excess.

To any of two choices, one will prevail, while the other will be discarded. It is to say, for anyone who can comprehend this, that to have one choice is to have none at all. That is where instinct comes into play. Because, when one makes the correct choice, one did not choose. One merely chose what was right, as it required no time to contemplate. It is to say that one already knew what to choose, before the options were open. Between familiarity and something that is alien and unfamiliar, there is simply the choice between the singular former and the plural latter.

The factor of “responsibility” does not enter for the decision, itself. It enters during the consequences of the decision. The decision, that was indeed a decision, bringing about cause and effect. Crime and punishment. Such is what a decision makes it out to be. The more choice, the more wrongdoing. The less choice, the more creation.

Would a woman, who decides on an abortion, comprehend any of the above? That, for her to make a choice, is to excuse the responsibility of consequence? Or, to excuse the consequence of responsibility? If she chooses for it, then she has chosen a method for destruction, being the incorrect one. For her to fight for choice, is to fight for excuse. It is, however, the opposite when a mother would find it nearly impossible to choose a child out of two, already grown, to die, when a criminal is pointing a gun at either or. Such a mother, with two grown children, would not be choosing for her offspring to live. Since all choices comes down to the death of correctness (or creation), then it is all rightness behind such correctness that would not be a choice.

We either choose to die, or to have no choice but to live so that we may be responsible for the consequences of our choices. All mistakes are based on a choice, because if we never learned from our errors, then we’d keep making excuses to never form wisdom. Though, when we do learn from our mistakes, we then have no choice but to the correct path. Unless, of course, we did not actually learn, though merely deceived everyone for regained trust.

Of decisions that have caused others, or ourselves, the pain, this is where individualism glows the brightest. It is so a person may see and objectively understand their mistakes, formed from endless excuse.

If we excuse responsibility, then we do the same for life. We would be negligent of it, or to simply outright destroy it.

Philosophy – “Why Representation is a Lie” – 4/14/2021

“Those prideful of being ‘represented’, for appearance’s sake, in a workforce of utility can only be described as the ones who believe ugliness can be a form of beauty.”
– Modern Romanticism

It is the ugliness of toil, to the creation of something beautiful, that separates both.

Poverty is not beautiful, as it should never be called such. It will only ever make poverty remain stagnant. People work, they toil, to make something of themselves. It is the toil that is the ugliness. It is the creation that becomes beautiful. To make something of oneself involves transfiguration, to become something better than the current person one is. That is beauty.

Beauty is a betterment of a former kind, not an acceptance of other supposed types. If it is ever the latter, then beauty becomes ugliness by way of what hideous stands for. Hideous is only ever the shattering or the destruction of creation. It is the death of a life, that represents this hideousness. If we, as people, ever believe ugliness can be beautiful, then we have thrown out the standard of preservation. However, only in the manner of excessive comfort, without the discipline that pain brings, can we be this way.

Rising above a current state, a meager stature where one has remained stagnant, is to become beautiful, is to create, is to make something of oneself. Love has no place, if we expect it to be handed to us, before us. We comprehend who we are. We should remember our identity.

An identity is not a discovery. It is a reminder of our universal selves. It is deceit that dominates a person’s mind, when they believe that “who they are” has “yet to be understood”. It is a deception, because what can be understood, to any person, is that what is made of oneself is a betterment of who they are, not directly of their identity.

Representation is the pride, inhabited in the mind, of one who cannot differ beauty from ugliness simply by understanding the notion that to make something of the self has nothing to do with appearances. It is to comprehend that appearances are stagnant, do not move, though are there to move others. If one is proud of simply being represented, then they are like the artwork hung upon the wall for viewing eyes. Inspiration for others, yet stagnancy for the self.

One is finished in “representation”, just as the artwork. A completed picture, and unable to progress the self any further.

Philosophy – “Why a Choice shows Comparison to Objectification” – 4/9/2021

“All that a person chooses compares to death. We choose death, because we cannot select between who should live. Therefore, in all that compares to a choice, relates always to what makes life temporary. Death.”
– Modern Romanticism

If we can choose, then it will be the object, or of everything according to something so inhuman and lifeless as such. An object shows no signs of humanity. An object compares to death, because nothing of the beloved life will be chosen for its continuance. To love life, means not to choose it. To love life, means to reject the offering of death.

It is because death will embrace the one who has no more to lose, except for their life. No more to love, for that makes the last thing to be welcome into Death’s arms of the one who cannot stand existence.

Life is no comparison to an object, though choice will always relate to the objectification of life. To choose a life, is not to embrace a calling. If we feel proper to do whatever is our passion, then it is not a choice to become what we love. For we will feel as though we can be no better, do no worse, than what is meant for us, by what is personally satisfactory. It is the embrace of what we are called to do, that we, ourselves, feel as though we are alive.

Choosing an object is much like selecting who shall die. If an executioner must point their finger to the lives, it is their control over them that will draw them unto death. Though, even according to death, it relates to an ending before another beginning. If one’s former way to live is being replaced by another, is still to say that one is not treated as the human. It is still to say that their life is not one, though they’ve merely been selected because they are an object.

It is to say that if the employer chooses between the candidates for the position, then they are, to figuratively speak of this, the executioner who is making a replacement for an unfilled space. No humanity is within selection. It is only the consideration of self-benefit, of the selfish need to objectify oneself through death, that one embeds themselves into instant gratification.

10 Reasons why Love has no Relation to Consumerism – 4/8/2021

1. Love has nothing to do with consumerism, in that it has nothing to do with division.

2. Love has nothing to do with consumerism, because itself relates to never having a choice.

3. Love has nothing to do with consumerism, because the consumerist mind has more to do with wanting an excuse, being able to reason, and having infinite choices.

4. Love has nothing to do with consumerism, because “having a choice” would be more oriented towards cheating or committing infidelity.

5. Love has nothing to do with consumerism, because itself has more of a relation to honesty. It is honesty that has a relation to a lack of freedom or a lack of the ability to excuse oneself.

6. Love has nothing to do with consumerism, because it bases itself on remembered standards, which the consumerist mindset has none.

7. Love has nothing to do with consumerism, because the consumerist mindset has more of an affiliation with easily-manipulated & exploitable feelings, over anything eternal.

8. Love has nothing to do with consumerism, because itself has nothing to do with manipulation. It is manipulation that compares to the ability to reason, and then to wriggle oneself out of responsibility.

9. Love has nothing to do with consumerism, because the consumerist mindset has a better comparison to freedom. It is the concept of freedom and infinite choice that limits itself in terms of a value’s longevity, to be more aligned with worth for the infinite amount.

10. Love has nothing to do with consumerism, because the consumerist mindset comprehends infinite choice as the independence of the person. It is independence that compels a person to rebel against the past, for which love encompasses.

Philosophy – “A Critique against LGBTQ” – 3/12/2021

“Knowing the self, being a place of limitation, being then what a human is. A source of imperfection. Inclusiveness is, therefore, not the way to involve the everything or anything of the world.”
– Modern Romanticism

Inclusiveness resides upon the involvement of those who are said to not be respected for “who they are”. Yet, their involvement is not ever thought upon, in regards to their capability. A fault with equity is to involve a person, though only upon the supposed knowledge of “who they are”. And, just what is a person known by? If not for their limitations as humans, then perhaps for their drive to be perfect? If to “know a person” does not revolve around comprehending another, as a human, then what for?

It is always the knowledge of another person or of oneself, that relates to them or the self, as a human. Though, the LGBTQ community are there to encourage the world to “involve” those who are never accepted for “who they are”. And, is it in our place to understand “who they are”, if we can believe their limitations should be voided? If not to understand a person by their limits, then perhaps we are simply arrogant and delusional.

If it is not mental illness to be a transgender, then is the former, not the latter, not delusion? And, if we are never delusional while being mentally ill, then is merely the acceptance of certain sorts only there for the inclusiveness of pure incapability? Those who are mentally ill are mainly incapable, though more-so because we are ignorant of what they are capable of doing.

Capability and incapability sticks as the back-to-back resonation for “knowing who a person is”. As we are incapable of understanding someone for their perfections, then it should be comprehensive enough to believe we are instead capable of knowing them for how they relate to us. However, with differing identities, that is more often the case, among the LGBTQ world, as an impossibility. An introduction should not be forced. Diversity is not meant to be forced. That is because an introduction from someone else, in relation to themselves as a fellow human, comes to us as simply natural. It is voided of the artificial nature of force.

Does life force itself? No, though death does. Death is the only thing forced upon. And, since this resides among the place of fear, then the word “tolerance” encompasses the same. As it is, we can only ever tolerate what we are forced to bear with. We can accept what we are friendly towards, because the naturalism of its introduction was never forced. Instead, that naturalistic way was an example of ourselves, as well. As in, it was an example of what should be, not what shouldn’t.

For what should be in this world, is the person who believe they can be everything. Even among those who dream or are ambitious and delusional enough to think they are never incorrect upon what they do, always end up at a point where they discover sheer impossibility.

To be capable or to be its opposite, shows ourselves, in contrast from LGBTQ, that life is a stockpile of what we can do versus what we cannot. It is never to “know ourselves” nor to “know another” in the belief they are a human, when we’ve kept comprehending them as capable of doing anything. As it is, that’s the same thing as using them.

Philosophy – “Why Hate is not a Free Emotion” – 3/10/2021

“From love, people will trust. From betrayal, people will hate.”
– Modern Romanticism

Hatred is circumstantial as to who becomes the unfortunate soul to be targeted, by it. Though, by the one fused to this suffocating emotion, can be when a lie is what has convinced them that someone has caused betrayal. Through this delusion, hatred can be born. Deception is indeed sometimes the route that causes a person to be sunken into hatred. Though, as a suffocating emotion, it cannot be felt freely. As in, hate is impossible to feel, towards a race, towards a gender, towards a religion, towards a nation, or towards anyone or anything broad and numbered, within itself.

Individuals hate others of the same singular, though only when love unto trust was the scenario, first of all. Love unto trust, and then, when hatred was the next transformation, it was only due to a perceived betrayal that brought the hateful person low. It was love unto trust, because as hatred is no free emotion, it is always specific as to who is targeted. Specific, since hatred came from trust. Utmost trust, and when it is slashed, the perceived betrayal caused the now specific feeling of hatred to be birthed.

We cannot hate a race, nor can a man hate all women. What we can do, out of prejudice, is simply not know another. Therefore, it is prejudice that relates only to ignorance, not hatred. Though, no media would tell of racism or whatever form of prejudice through a slogan such as “stop the fear”, because that raises the idea of mutual vulnerability. If that were the new idea to speak upon, there would be unity. People would begin to question whether there is mutual vulnerability between those who fear each other, rather than employing a word like “hatred” to deceive others into believing it is one-sided.

For hatred is that, being a one-sided emotion, targeted as specific. Through the deception that makes other believe that racism or some other form of prejudice can be one-sided, it is why they utilize the word called “hate”. It is them that believe that perhaps a racist person, who might be white of skin-tone, is ever only the type to be of such an ignorant mindset.

That is to say that if any certain person cannot be prejudiced, would mean that they are incapable of feeling fear. Since it is fear that has a relation to ignorance, out of common examples of people who are reluctant to get to know another person, someone who cannot be prejudiced also cannot be afraid. It might be right to admit that a person who cannot feel afraid, would also not be needed for education. Such a latter point refers to the media’s excessive usage of the word “hate”, referencing also a one-sided understanding of prejudice, deluding a person into believing education, which would alleviate ignorance, is unneeded.

Would a black person, sometimes said to possess the immunity to racism, not ever feel fear or be anxious? If that were the case, then ignorance has rocketed itself to the level where we might even one day believe that people within black communities don’t suffer from blood pressure issues.

Without feeling fear, one would be incapable of having a high blood pressure, or even a living heartbeat or pulse. We could even admit, aloud, that those who unable to perhaps be prejudiced are vampires or zombies, without heartbeats or even a working lower brain.

Why would we require education, if everyone can freely state the words, “I hate everyone”? And, why would we require education, if someone can say about the prejudiced person that they are “hateful”? It would be evident, through hatred, that we knew a person, upon a time in our lives.

Philosophy – “Why Anti-Racism Encourages Division” – 2/22/2021

“Rejection is just one representation of division, out of either a disregard for how a person appears upon the surface, or by some remembrance to past experience. To reject, out of valid reason, would not be the ignorance between two people who reject each other for none. Out of no reason, that is, people reject out of ignorance. Though, with hatred, people reject each other with good reason involved.”
– Modern Romanticism

To be “anti”, to a person’s mind, references avoidance. Though, how does a person “avoid racism”, if not, at the same time, avoid people? In racism, there is avoidance, in and of itself. That is, one cannot be “anti-racist” without ignoring the fact that racism refers to an absence. Depression can be spoken of, as an example between this divide of valid and invalid reason for one’s avoidance. It is a feeling being felt due a loss or what never was. Out of hatred, there is now a valid avoidance. Though out of ignorance, there is an invalid avoidance.

Does a person, who hates another, have a valid reason for their avoidance to them? They do, by how such avoidance signifies their need to “move on” from the past experience. However, does a person who simply does not know another, though expresses prejudice to them, have a valid reason for their avoidance to them? They do not, due to how their ignorance has made them willing to look only upon the surface. It is, by this example, why the term “avoidance”, by way of racism or any form of prejudice, has to do with having no reason to have knowledge of another person. We are racist or just prejudiced, because we have no reason to do so. Though, were we to have a reason for our avoidance, out of legitimate hatred, then we can be excused from any accusation of supposed prejudices.

Hatred or prejudice is indeed related to the example of depression. This inner sadness is only ever brought about by one of two ways: either in what was lost, or what has never been. It is either an active or a passive feeling. We will feel we have a reason for it, or not one at all.

By how we feel we’ve no reason for either our prejudices or our depression, it is because we avoid out of being passive to another person.

Then, to be “anti-racist” is to encourage this avoidance, in being exposed to only ourselves or those of our kind. It becomes a narcissistic mindset, where the reflections we view are never that of newness, in terms of knowledge. We stay with what we know, being confined out of our reluctance to discover more. For if we did discover more, we’d not see difference, though sameness.

By how we are prejudiced, we simply have no reason for it. Same with ignorance, where is just no reason to be so. Same with depression, where it can be felt without any clue to its origin. Among all these things, we have avoided. We have avoided, because we cannot find an excuse for it.