Tag: Compassion

Philosophy – “Why the World Doesn’t Care” – 11/21/2022

“It shows a great deal of insecurity and even a sign of one’s attitude of betrayal to forget those who are closest to this individual and soon focus on the world of what it, in its vastness of distractions, should be paying attention to.”

– Modern Romanticism

We cannot expect the world to care. It is the same as expecting someone else, whom we don’t trust, to shoulder our personal woes and hardships. Who around has such broad-enough shoulders to be able to carry what we can no longer keep inside our hearts, our heads, or in our arms? When we expect someone else to do this, especially of “the world” or of “society”, we can be extending an expression of dismissal to their woes and hardships in our effort to place a greater light upon our own. We can also be extending an expression of dismissal to those who’ve known us, since our childhood, in favor of the world with its endless sea of distractions and other priorities.

The world doesn’t care, simply because it will, at most, extend a brief glimpse upon your torment, and then turn from it in the next second. For there are only two types of people who exist, upon when experiencing their empathy for another human being. There is either the type of person who stays, or there is the type of person who leaves. Upon the latter, empathy had been short-lived, and had receded into empathy’s opposite, being sympathy. Sympathy is where a person, once having involved themselves in another’s troubles, feels safest. In that safety, the comfort of witnessing pain from afar is where they believe there will be no longer a need to involve themselves. This becomes identified of “the world”, or of strangers who state their brief expressions of kindness, to suddenly mute those expressions and twist their forms back towards their own life with its own sorrows. However, among those who stay with those they’ve claimed to love, we can no longer view these people as part of “the world”. Rather, we admit that these people are part of “our world”.

If a homeless person is seen to be begging in the streets, they are begging for something that will vanish. For that includes the giver of a scrap of extra change found at the bottom of their pocket. A homeless individual is begging for something they comprehend will not stay. The other individual who had given that supposedly needless piece of extra change will also not stay. As for the world, does it care? It does not, while a homeless person’s evident wisdom comes at knowing that their problems are not the world’s problems. The cure to their problems is not what they can beg for, because all things a homeless person has been begging for will not solve what is actually wrong. It begs the question, is something wrong with the world, or is there something wrong with us? Within “the world” or “our world”, what is truly missing?

Philosophy – “Why Politicians are Incapable of Compassion” – 3/19/2021

“Know always that the face that never even is truthful with the self can spread upon the grieving fellow the coat of sugar that reveals only the deception he’s believed in.”

– Modern Romanticism

Nothing is as kind as deception. It is what we mistake, of the politician, for compassion. We refuse in the attempt to see past the face of theirs to notice something that would not blossom with truth. Truth has never resided in them, nor from them and for the world. Among the politician who shares his consolation towards grief, comprehend only that deception is the softness he brings. Comprehend only that he is not there to bring you truth of any matter, since through deception, what will ease the grief is only what has been a part of him.

If the politician ever grieves, it is then over their lost humanity. In their mind, it has become a forgotten element, this necessity for being human, so the deception lends itself as a comforting arm to the grieving individual. As in, to place deception in the most shielding warmth, though forgetting about who they helped, since it was never sincere.

No politician is capable of compassion, since the profession allows for a certain contrast between itself and whatever is at their home. Such a contrast to differ the career as a politician, from life among the ordinary. How does a politician perform outside of the succumbing stage act of deception before the multitude of cameras? Is he revealing the truth, at his home? Does he become drunk, strike his kids into being bloodied, thrust his wife with the needed force for the committal of marital rape, to then pass out upon the couch? Such shocking habits would not be caught anywhere on the camera, of one that defends the image of such a politician.

Yet, the most shocking aspects to a person are their truths. It is of things they hide from the world or the entire universe. It allows for endless question upon the “behind the scenes” lifestyles of a politician, as it does for the celebrity. Those we expect to resemble perfection, without flaws, are those politicians whose own grief is their humanity. Is their truth a horror behind the windows, doors and walls of their home? Do they act in ways that would destroy our long-understood comprehensions of them?

As compassion would express a mote of truth, nothing can be of that from the open mouth or caress from fingers offered by the politician. Empathy requires a connection of truth. A lightning-quick access of the heart, as is the signal to empathy’s depiction of another’s pain to ourselves. It is that the unknown aspects of those “behind the scenes” lifestyles to the politician are so unknown, that what we do understand remains as the “truth”, yet varnished.

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.

Philosophy – A Critique on Veganism – “A Denial of Humanity” – 2/4/2021

“If one fails to consume, then they shall be consumed by the oppressors we can state are ‘animals’ who resemble humans.”

– Modern Romanticism

How can Vegans be sympathetic towards animals? Is it within the Vegan philosophy to be kind towards other humans, as one? Or, is it within the Vegan philosophy to somehow negate the knowledge that we, too, can be “animals”? And, if Vegans believe a human cannot be compared to an animal, then they must either place themselves as either greater or lesser, to “animals”.

What defines an “animal”, other than what we need to kill, because it does not resemble a human?

Compare the psychopathic serial killer to an “animal”. Compare the pedophile to an “animal”. Compare the raging tyrant to an “animal”. We inevitably bring these people low, from whatever supposed monument they felt was necessary to construct, that they might look down upon those deemed as “lesser”. They deserve no restraint from us, as we “put them down” to a sleep they shall never wake from.

If we can be sympathetic or even empathetic towards other humans, then we do not bend a knee towards oppressors. However, sickened animals, especially of the mind, when they cannot be domesticated like a human, deserve the mercy of euthanization that puts the beast to eternal rest.

If the Vegan can believe humans are not able to be “animals”, then they must believe we are either greater or lesser to them. In which case, if the former is the truth of the Vegan, they contradict themselves. If the latter is the truth of the Vegan, then they are automatic food for those who would “consume” someone who’d not dare to fight against animals.

To be higher than any animal, whether a mere poodle or a domineering tyrant, means to declare oneself as human, as better or more developed than what simply seeks to tear apart. If we do not “consume” what is an animal, then we become consumed by things that are “animals”, though resemble humans.

Philosophy – “The Definition of Unfairness” – 11/30/2020

“To the introduction of fairness, comes as the introduction of unfairness when it is brought forth to be compassion. Equality is not compassionate.”

– Modern Romanticism

Equality is not compassionate.

Could one “introduce” fairness into a working environment, full of people believed to be treated with unfairness? That is the same as offering special treatment. That is unequal, to the rest.

It is the same as a nurse falling in love with a cancer patient, and soon offering more attention to who they love, over the rest. This makes the only “equality” within the workforce, to represent something of mechanical function. Outside of the workforce, in specifics, a person is understood by one’s family to not be a tool. Within the workforce, there is no more than tools.

One cannot introduce fairness for all workers, without also introducing special treatment. For the introduction of special treatment, is the introduction of unfairness and inequality.

There is only one “equality” or “fairness” in the working environment, and that is the objectification of each man and woman. There is no room for compassion, unless special treatment and attention is in order.

It is true that “special treatment” will be designated, targeted, and specific upon a person taken from among the rest. There is a prejudice to that. Why should that person who has targeted an individual, treat them as an example that the rest would follow suit? Even among a hierarchy, all are at the same level, as tools, as instruments of construction, even when an inch taller on a scale.

Equality is not compassionate, for it always turns into a thing of selection.

Equality and fairness, when perceived by a human to reference these specifics, becomes the human’s way to hijack Nature. We then perform our own way on natural selection to allow only certain specifics to ascend.

Mixing compassion with function always has the former win over the latter. For this is because humanity holds a greater power, seen by the common human as what should always overlap inhuman behavior. And, it always does.

As humans, we are not tools. As humans, we are loved. Though, compassion has no place among a tool, when meant to be one.

The constant feud between tools, or people wishing to be viewed as humans, becomes a series of infighting in one’s own country. A “subtle civil war”, so to speak, as each person fights for their “rights”, among the desire to remain standing. All this introduces is constant paranoia, among a perpetual cautiousness on who to trust.

Could compassion ever be involved in the workforce? It should not. One could say the words, “Humans are not tools.” Though, were they to throw the word “humans” out of that statement, there’d be no meaning left.

For “meaning” holds meaning on something a person finds precious enough to protect. A right to be. A right to be human. Though, to be a tool, and then wish to be human, is all the inequality a person should understand is, in the workforce.

There are only two equalities, in this world:

The first is to be dead.

The second is the toiling labor of a worker, who burns with the motivation to return to their home. At home, they are, at last, a human.

Personal Post – “A Thing about Ignorance/Prejudice…”

I began this blog with the idea of writing poetry. Then, it expanded into both prose and philosophy. I write through this blog to share a density of emotions and analogies, carried through the words.

As I see the world today, I am left with the conclusion that people are not close, especially when the focus is on what I call “surface details”.

“Surface details” are the divisions of color. “Colors” can be a race, a gender, a religion, etc. All colors should be referenced as a mask, to conceal truth. What truth? The truth that is in the heart. We have to know a person, be close to a person, trust a person, to understand them, and have the knowledge of them. Not to ever manipulate them, though to feel empathy for hurts, and heal those hurts through love.

Why would anyone wish to focus on their color, when they could take off such a mask, to show the truth of the heart?

As a child and adolescent of a white skin color, the majority of my friends were black. I did not care. I played basketball. I mingled with those who were attracted to that sport. It’s interesting to note, that even as I write this, such details feel so alien. Even now, I do not feel good.

To conclude the last paragraph, my best friend is Hispanic, while the love of my life who all 1,000+ poems on this blog are dedicated to, is Bisexual. But, I say, who cares?

Who cares about such surface details, which if a person is so comfortable in discussing, would make them prejudiced?

I hold a way of thinking that conforms with this blog, that any person is very much yearning for someone else to see their heart. They want that person to handle it with care, with compassion, with gentleness. Why would anyone wish for loneliness to counter company?

Why not see the truth of a person? Why not engage with them? If we throw around a slogan that says, “Only you understand yourself,” we are saying that no one else should speak to you. If we can only understand ourselves, and are openly admitting that, we are believing the entire world would be ignorant of us. We are then proud of another’s ignorance to us. That is a direct enforcement of prejudice.

Prejudice is ignorance, as ignorance is always aligned with fear. We are fearful, when prejudiced, because we do not have the courage to face what we do not wish to know.

Quote – “Why One should not Discuss Race” – 8/12/2020

“To ‘discuss race’ would be equivalent to ‘discussing the cover of a book’ before the book is even read. For who does such things, if not to be afraid of knowing the book’s contents? It’s the same example as stalling to meet someone, for fear of either being exposed or knowing something one does not wish to hear of the other. This, in truth, promotes fear.

Why discuss the external, when there’s an infinite amount more details to discuss of the internal?

The politician who sympathizes with race, does not sympathize with the culture of that race being equivalent to the contents of a book.

The fearful leader is not a leader.”

– Modern Romanticism

Quote – “In Love, a Person Communicates, Understands, and Forgives” – 7/28/2020

“A human is so much a human, when they will be willing to punish. How else is God described, besides the one who forgives the sinner?

A human, a punisher, and it is only because they have a form to feel pleasure through, that they will do this. A human craves. And, in what they crave, they punish another to deal pain, learning another’s weakness.

Though, through love, a person can communicate to understand, and in that understanding, a person learns to forgive. Learn the tale, before the judgement to punish, and one can judge a person’s truest fault, being their humanity. In this, they will comprehend themselves the same as another.

They will break themselves like not waves against the shore, though against each other. They now know each other’s storm, and they can connect in the calm.”

– Modern Romanticism

Quote – “When Evil has a Greater, Hidden Light” – Pt. 2 – 6/20/2020

“It can be known of the sun to cast a shadow. Why not it then be known of all a person’s darkness, to originate from a source of light? It can be believed of evil, that it was once full of something well-known to the world, clearer in that the light allowed us to see. It can be believed, as well, that our light can penetrate the darkness of another, and see something that can certainly merge with ourselves. We take that light we see, like holding hands with the one we thought was a demon.

For it is that a light matches all other light, and that shadows are arranged in differing shades.”

– Anonymous

Quote – “Why Men do not Weep” – 6/17/2020

“Men are never told by some unseen force, to never weep. It is in their personal motto, to never weep. For if they have heard the words, ‘Do not cry’ from another man, it has been easily recognized as right to listen to. Though, that is only because the man in turmoil has said such words to himself, at least a thousand times. Men are not conditioned by a society to never weep, as much as they always condition themselves to never weep. When a man can weep, he is fracturing his own armor, impaling himself on his own sword, for he fronted himself with the armor, showed his weapon to many enemies, simply to protect himself from fear. A man’s enemy is always himself.

To know that a man only protects himself out of an effort to be honest with himself, is in the comprehension that his greatest honesty is to know that he cannot do that. He breaks himself down, in the lie, for he knows his truth belongs with someone else. The source of his weakness, is not within himself, though is in the sight of someone else’s weakness.”

– Anonymous