Tag: Empath

Philosophy Series – “Of Humanity” – Pt. 1 – 8/15/2021

“Humans are only complex, because of our curse to overthink ourselves. To our identity that makes us, it is not so complex as to state we are different enough to be unique, even if that uniqueness allows us a moment of pride. Our identity is a human one. We are not above nor beneath another person, when we are equal. We share in pain, as easily we can overcome such, through the vulnerability that tells of ourselves being capable to be wounded.”

– Modern Romanticism

No human possesses no weakness. It is the greatest weakness to believe one has none, since this reveals oneself in the light with the most exposure.

Protection. This enforces the notion of love. To protect the self, would be preferred in the physical sense. However, at the psychological level, protection means more for where a secret can be shared. No friend nor lover should interrogate, though should offer a sense of comfort that one’s secrets are not held within.

Are all a person’s darkest secrets most often carried to the grave? Could that person have been Forest Gump, speaking of everything during a time when they have no one left for confession’s sake? Life is too short to hold it back with weights. Who is a friend to another? Who is a lover to another? Of generations that depict themselves “unique” upon the presence of their scars, comes with the encouragement for isolation or segregation. A birth of prejudiced generations, that is, since to believe one’s pain makes an individual unique, is to renounce the definition behind equality.

Continue reading “Philosophy Series – “Of Humanity” – Pt. 1 – 8/15/2021″

Quote – “What it Means to Empathize with a Monster” – 7/18/2021

“Could we ever empathize with the mindset of Hitler, as a characteristic so similar in others? As all monstrous another can be, to empathize with one so beastly in state and appearance calls us to what ourselves can be feeling in their presence. Fear. We fear the monster. If such is the case, then to empathize with a monster is to know their fear. Just as Hitler had feared the Jewish people, believing them a threat to Germany. Or, just as a family evicts an addict out of their home, not out of hatred, though motivated by the fear that their influence would spread. It is usually enough to know that a monster might be pure in their evil, though never sufficient to understand a human’s darkness shows the same depth to a shade as where we hide when they will hunt for us.”

– Modern Romanticism

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.

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

“It is that pain of a monster, that urges their ongoing casting of shadows. Their light, when unearthed, burns a fierceness from buried beneath so much Hell. Love, the ultimate emotion, sees through Hell, sees beneath Hell, to comprehend the monster beyond the wounds. See their tears, comprehend their sorrows, for their lakes will be greater, clearer, than the pools of blood.”

– Anonymous

A Quote of Wisdom – “How Far does Empathy Reach?” – 3/5/2020

“How far does empathy reach, besides beneath the Hell piled atop the guilt that one runs from? Empathy has, as I believe it to have, the power to burn a hole through the floor of Hell, of a person’s Hell, to see what the evil person does not wish to see, of themselves.”

Dialogue – “A Flaw within the Workforce” – Philosophy – 2/7/2020

Q: You believe that personal experience is superior to a written credential, such a University degree, or by simply being well-read within the subject?

A: I believe it to be true that one’s own credibility is meager, without personal experience within the subject chosen. Why should a person ever be allowed the title of “marriage counselor” if they have never been married? Thus, such a so-called “marriage counselor” will only be reciting what they have read from a manual. From whatever they’ve read, that will be the only advice given, and the couple in a struggling marriage may as well simply buy the books the so-called “marriage counselor” has read, rather than waste endless appointments on nothing.

Q: Then, what of other subjects?

A: Other subjects, even when we consider into line the Psychiatrist who has never personally experienced mental illness, should have no right to be a Psychiatrist. Even if they’ve dealt with their own friends having mental illnesses, and have been spared of such demented states themselves, they cannot possibly empathize with their patients. Therefore, such a so-called “Psychiatrist” may as well be a vending machine that distributes medication to anyone requiring it. As well, what place does a University professor have to teach students about successful entrepreneur practices, if the professor has never owned a “successful business” themselves? Such students may as well merely buy off the books that the so-called “University professor” is just repeating, word-for-word.

Q: How can you conclude?

A: In former days, it was known that the pupil would surpass the master. This is impossible, now that the master is no longer looking forward to such a feat, and University education has become a waste of time, because of this. How can a pupil surpass someone who has never done what the pupil plans to actually do? They have nothing for challenge, in terms of who has taught them, and now that such a thing has been erased, they are merely aligning with the rest, with no individualism.

An Observation/Excerpt from Former Post – “The Definition of Corruption” – Psychology – 2/6/2020

What is “corruption”, as a definition? Corruption is appetite, and “appetite” is the most fundamental of human desires. Hunger, is always a trait for the self. Practical ways will not cure it, but more-so make people give into selfishness. Corruption comes around when we realize our own nightmares and fears are stemming from a continuous distrust in those who actually may feel our pain. They rise, these nightmares, like Hell made a reality. A pauper feels another pauper’s pain, like death comprehends death. But, what of a former pauper to feel a current pauper’s pain? That is empathy. That is identical to life seeing death, and understanding it. Forming a relationship through empathy creates closeness and trust. However, forming a relationship through sympathy will always operate more on distrust than trust. For the “sharing of bread” is most certainly the same as the “sharing of pain”, and we have empathy in that.

An Observation – “What is Empathy?” – Psychology – 2/4/2020

Many will believe there are those who “lack empathy”, because such people are “unkind” or “insensitive”. Such may not be the case, considering what empathy actually is.

Empathy is “sight”, or “vision”. It is the “awareness” into a person’s world, their light, and their realm of suffering.

Therefore, the “action” that has to do with aiding a person, has nothing to do with empathy. One can believe that a person’s problem is far too deep for simple care and comfort, and must require some disciplinary focus, so that the problem can be taken out. Like a bullet that has embedded deep into a soldier’s flesh. One cannot simply dig the bullet out, but must perform surgery while the soldier is placed under anesthetic.

Deep within, and not on the surface, is where “empathy” has its purpose, and takes shape.

It is the definition of humanity, this empathy. Deep understanding, like diving into an ocean. Though, there is still only the “sight”, and still, never the action. The “action” is decided upon, after one realizes what to do for the wound.

If a person, who is the suffering one, desires nothing more than coddling, then anything from those who have heeded those desires, will not “see” any deeper into the problem. That is, they will not empathize, and the best they can do, is sympathize. “Sympathy” is opposite from “empathy”, because sympathy is more-so suited to placing a wounded person into a room full of other wounded people, to be treated with the same aid.

Would a doctor feel empathy for every person he or she aids? No. That is because no doctor, despite their career being geared towards saving lives, would never have the sheer volume of time, to see into every person’s heart. Soon, it becomes more-so a job, than a work of humanity. Thus, they sympathize, and that’s the best they can do.

Empathy is sight, and to relate that notion to the idea that a surgeon can dig out a bullet, is merely taking what humanity is, and turning it towards a practical application. Empathy, nor love, nor humanity, is ever practical, because as has been said, empathy is without action, being only sight.

The vision, or the understanding, of a person’s problem, and would a doctor ever begin to weep, just from staring a moment too long? That may be empathy, though it would not occur for every patient.

Dialogue – “A Person’s Steering from Negativity as a Wrong” – 7/15/2019

Q: You have mentioned that ‘failure’ is indeed what a person these days has said to be a wrong in even mentioning; that people these days have forgone even the mentioning of the word, and that this is also a wrong. Will you elaborate?

A: “Failure” is a motive. To not mention the word makes a human more afraid of failure, and more in liking of success than ever in history. We are meant to be depressed through failure, because that depression makes us more likely to never commit to that action ever again. Especially if such an action has created harm to either ourselves or to others, we should name the action a failure, and never attempt it, again. We, as humans, wish to be away from failure, and never call a “failed attempt” a failure, and from this, we are more alike the dead, then with the living.

Q: How are we, as failing humans, more alike the dead, than the living?

A: As living humans, we are here to accept insults and belittlement, as much as possible. We grow strong through the insult, when it hurts. When we discourage the insult, we grow afraid of pain, and also failure. When a human has died, a dead human cannot be criticized. It is simply impossible. Or rather, it is possible, of course, but it is a waste of breath. To imagine the dying father, who has a son who had perhaps forty years to speak his own mind, now has waited until the bitter end to say everything, would be cowardly. And it is for this reason, when in comparison to fear, that such a failure would be a motivation for life, not a word to escape from, and avoid. Fear is an incredible motivator.

Q: And finally, you have mentioned that the living human is rather, the dead human, because they are more in comparison to dead, when they have escaped from criticism. Will you elaborate?

A: Indeed, as a dead human, though with a beating heart, such people have run away from failure, and have seen failure as a merciless word. They will say, “Do not see your actions as failures.” Though, such a mentality only breeds a mind that will ignore failure, itself. A mistake is only a synonym to the word “failure”, for both must have the consequences to brave with responsibility. The dead person has no responsibility. The live person does have infinite responsibility. The dead person is carried to their grave, with limp limbs. There is no more strength in them, now that they are dead. What is the live one, if they act the same? They are the weak and dependent person, objectively speaking, when in comparison to the dead. As a dead human, with a beating heart, they are praised for their successes, and never criticized. This is to say that the more a person clears themselves of criticism, the more they clear themselves of life and humanity.