Tag: Marxism

“In highest knowledge of the issues to a person, is always in lowest ignorance to the individual.”

– Modern Romanticism

When does a government ever comprehend the system of empathy as non-existent? Systemic empathy is the same as non-empathy. To comprehend the many issues a singular person faces, is not to know the universal fault for which is the individual. One could have knowledge of societal problems, though never knowledge of people. One could know the issues a person faces, though should they never get to understand the individual, they have missed the target of the true problem.

Where is the genuine nature of a government? Of a collective comprehending collective issues, is never individuals understanding each other. This is where ennui takes place. To know what a person’s problems are, leaves out the knowledge for what a person knows of themselves. As in, for what an individual understands of themselves, is in fullest certainty, whether hidden or revealed, that they are the source of all their misfortune. For should they be the irresponsibility that caused their issues, then what does a government do for that? If it was irresponsibility of the individual that caused the issues to which the government is expected to care for, then it will be the further irresponsibility of the government that worsens the individual. How can a government care for what it cannot care for, of what it cannot see, cannot ever employ the empathy towards without it being unequal?

Irresponsibility is to never know the issue, while responsibility comprehends the source to all issues. Love sees exactly what a person faces of themselves, and it is that a government can never be loving. As that source is the irresponsibility and lack of accountability to an individual, it will be the opposite mindsets that makes a person know themselves. One fails, without knowing themselves. One loses everything, without keeping track of themselves. If one has lost their course, one has lost themselves, one doesn’t understand themselves, and then one desires a new identity. Why should selflessness be a system, when people are not systemically capable of it? Why should it be a societal measure, when empathy cannot be emplaced through such a mechanical way, called a “system”? Why is selflessness ever defined as such, when we are consistently ignorant of people?

Would it be more brave to help a person’s issues, or to help a person?

Does empathy ever offer the equality people wish for, or is it selective based on what we personally comprehend of ourselves? It is always the latter, as we know empathy to be.

This is not selflessness. This is not empathy. One should never expect the collective to understand nor to empathize with the individual. It is impossible. Only an individual can peer into the eyes of another, to understand their imperfections are the same as the former’s own. That is called “humanity”.

The most beautiful part of a human being is to know another human being. That, there cannot be a perfect system of selflessness, if we are unaware of ourselves being imperfect. Closeness, between individuals, would be the inevitable result of people who understand that a “fault” has to do with “being human”, not developing a solution to counter such an eternal problem as to be such.

To know ourselves, the individuals, as imperfect, is to comprehend another as the same, as another individual, with imperfections all of the same origin. If we diversify this, then we divide, and then no individual understands where a person’s true problem resides. For when we never understand an individual, though only focus on what they are challenged with, that person despises themselves more often for what they secretly know of themselves.

When all people become individuals, then they understand the truest threat, being themselves when only knowing their faults, being left alone with such imperfections, without the necessity for comparison.