“Why No One Selects their Personality Type” – 2/12/2022

Personality plays its largest role in crisis, while showing the outcome of one’s decisions after the reveal to the singular person’s demeanor. How does selection offer a part with personality when we cannot foretell when we will face an ordeal? Even if we could somewhat predict trouble, we cannot foresee exactly how much. In life, there is too much that cannot be predicted. If we could predict it all, we would have no need for personal development. Since personal development requires being able to learn from mistakes, a prediction would stunt this because we could prepare ourselves, in fullness, even against what we do not know. What we never know is what is around the corner, to the next day. A personality shows itself as either strong or weak, revealed in an automatic fashion without the need for selection. If we selected, then we would have predicted. Because we did not select, our best course is to be certain of our character. If we were strong, we handled the situation. If we were weak, we let someone else handle the situation. Our personality is revealed most prominently during crisis, because we could not select even those who would handle it for us without forgoing our potential strength.

– Modern Romanticism

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.

Quote – “Why it is Fine to Judge Appearances” – Pt. 2 – 8/15/2020

“All the appearances of a person, can be endless. It is how the deception operates. The skin tone can be made as an infinite arrangement of colors, for instance. Though, by focusing solely on that, we forget the beyond. We forget what is beneath. We forget what is behind such simple appearances that are swallowed up, merely because we are told to do so. To swallow such deceptions makes us a serpent, swallowing simple pleasure after simple pleasure, whole.

Manufactured illusions are the Devil’s playground toys. Humans will eat them, if they can be easily digested. Yet, is it not what is called the “meat of the matter” when we can dive to greater details, discover within vast darkness, and see with our own eyes what we were too afraid to look upon?

All the details of an individual requires trust that penetrates deception. Though, trust is not possible, when our deception is our shield.”

– Modern Romanticism

Quote – “Why it is Fine to Judge Appearances” – 8/15/2020

“Judging an appearance has been twisted of its meaning to refer towards only the ignorance of a person, the prejudice of a person. Yet, never has ignorance been so ripe, when we confuse our appearances, what we first notice, to either say that one cannot be assumed for a gender or a race, or whatever else. That is the same as enforcing deception. What the eyes see, is meant to be appropriate, and simply that. To be ‘appropriate’, means to be dressed in rags when one is a pauper, or to be dressed in a business suit when one is a businessman. Deception rules, when we cannot ‘judge an appearance’ enough to be past it, and know the individual, within.”

– Modern Romanticism

A Debunk – “A Liberation of Humanity turns Slavery into a Necessity” – Philosophy – 9/7/2019

There is nothing more enjoyable for a human than for them to see where the light is taking them, should that light not lead them to a place where the light has faded. And in today’s world, where “liberation” has become the most prominent of words, there is something very unruly and undisciplined in the word, itself.

We have called upon “freedom” like it were a necessity. Though, have such people ever considered what “freedom” looks like, when it stares at us like the eyes of a child, or of the animals that in today’s time, we preserve for their lives? We adore children, turn them towards the opinions of politics; and, for animals, should we see them within the realm of cruelty, we’ll be most intolerant of it, more-so than for a human.

We see “freedom”, not in the protection of a child, but in the child’s ignorance. We see “freedom”, not in an animal’s protection, but in the animal’s undeveloped mind. As well, ignorance for that animal, and we once more see ourselves in a space of question.

“Freedom” would make the child ever-more curious. “Freedom” would make the animal willing to develop and evolve, out of Nature’s touch. Though, both would require a master to teach them.

Question is where the “power of reason” originates. Liberation is not a place born out of answers to any problem. It creates the numerous intricacies born within a realm of lies and deception. “Question” is a place where an answer to a large and ancient question cannot be found, so one is content with merely the question. In today’s time, it is common for an answer or a statement to be responded to with a question. It is also common, in today’s time, for complexity to be made from simplicity.

In the past, when religion was our guide, we were infatuated with an answer. In today’s time, we are infatuated with a question. Today’s question, being, “What can I make of myself?” The previous answer, of former times, being, “This is who I am, and there’s nothing I may do for it.” Acceptance, therefore, was more in the hands of former times. These were times of what we know, today, to be “enslavement”. It is differed from today’s time, that is a time for “possibility”.

Would it then be so simple to comprehend that the Universe had created an answer of its own self, out of a question? That, to reject the nature of chromosomes for each gender, that which we do in today’s time, is to reject the Universe, itself? That, because we do this, we make a question out of an answer? That, the Universe had only wanted to create pure acceptance out of a question, when forming an answer? That, because nothing is ever solved today, that this is the reason for our continual confusion?

Slavery is the necessity for humanity, when in the realm of guidance, not cruelty. For a leader must lead through example, and never force.