Philosophy – “The Faults with Collectivism” – 6/20/2021

A divided nation is born out of the one without heart, being the leader to such a realm. As such, no leadership through example can be the governance. When it is example that leads all others to what was first made for the self, then it becomes possible for others to follow. Then, it becomes the concern that without leadership through example, there is itself in the implementation of force. One cannot utter praises of unification when being without heart, and their people are divided. To care, even of an examples with an addict, must be without division. It is since division is always comprised from the broken heart, in everything missing in a state to individualism.

Since it is collectivism that resonates in division, then it is never a group that relates to unity. Collectives are the places of division, due to individualism not being among it. One is an individual, when one can admit to their faults. In such an admittance, there is connection among other individuals through the notion of what is flawed, innate always of humanity. Though, a collective will be composed of sorts who never believe in their guilt nor flaws.

If to a nation, raised from a leadership with divided heart, there can be from it just the collectivism that amounts to mere deception. Deception is always to the place of the collective mindset, since the heart has no focus for its collection. It is since collectivism comprehends the resource, though to the heart being divided will result in the same for a nation.

A Critique on Marxism – Pt. 2 – “Why a System of Selflessness should Never be” – 1/23/2021

“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.

Philosophy – “A Critique upon Marxism” – 6/22/2020

“No living human can see themselves, to believe the world has shaped them, without neglecting themselves without a choice. In the lack of choice, we behold ourselves responsible. To this, why not the individual see themselves the responsible one, to blatantly ascribe to be something unlike the world?”

– Anonymous

Marxism will state that society and the world, are the issues of Man. It deconstructs, utilizing the methods of science to engross the world in mass change. To what change respects, it is chaos. To what union states, it is improvement. Unity resonates with no dissection of a world, for that inevitably causes the dissection of ourselves.

When we dissect what is around, the damage is reflected upon ourselves in our lives. That is because even to the child, there is our responsible self being reflected in their eyes, to what they have learned. Have we abandoned them to know on their own? And, to society and its realms, it is the same as the example of the child. What is around, is what we have either created or caused. Creation to causation. It is the two modes of the lifting that pertains to the improvement, to the dissecting that pertains to the change.

Improvement and change, they are not alike. We must bring love into this critique, to understand that “love”, by how it is defined, is the union. No dissection is under love, while no improvement is under change. Under change, there is randomness and a lack of attention. A lack of focus, means for those with material power to gain their material ground. They gain their material ground over those without attentiveness. For those who possess power over the ones with attentiveness to themselves, comprehend the population as blind. Blindness believes in what it can feel. Therefore, blindness will not ever believe in what it cannot see. Such means it will not believe in union, and will always believe in dissection.

What is change if not the transformation, of randomness, of the unexpected, of the uncontrolled, of the chaotic, of the unpredictable?

What is improvement if not the uplifting of what is weak, been abandoned out of negligence, been left for dead?

Marxism divides opinions, divides voice, until the words of a public become fainter and fainter. Does love shout? Or, is love simply boldness? We cannot deconstruct our environments, without deconstructing ourselves. We prove ourselves as the ignorant one when we look upon our creation, to see what we have caused, and never have built.

It is the bravest thing for any human to realize that they possess no choice, in a matter when they want one.

A Critique on the Content of Fair Share – “Anxiety as the Universal Trait of Territory”

Q: As for what is anxiety; can you point it out?

A: It links itself to the nervous system.

Q: As for what is discrimination; can you you point it out?

A: It links itself to the nervous system.

Q: Both anxiety and discrimination link themselves to the nervous system. Can you explain in detail?

A: The nervous system is the pain in which a body feels, and there comes the emotions and mental breakdowns based on the level of pain. Anxiety is universal, because all human beings possess a nervous system. All human beings possess a heart, as is obvious, and nothing worth pointing out. Discrimination is faceted by anxiety, due to such crimes of “hatred” actually being crimes of fear. Each human being desires change, but not every human being is willing to extend beyond patience to achieve that change. Radicalism is the essence of impatience, and impatience is what causes the greatest of devastation.

Q: And on the subject of territory, it is said by you that the “fight for equality” is what links itself to anxiety?

A: Anxiety and equality, in the fight for the latter, always feeds into the former. We live in a fearful society because of our fight for equality. Equality is the essence of fair share. Equal opportunity; equal rights; though what human being has ever been satisfied with such equal numbers? No deal in competition has ever been stable enough so that one does not rise above the other. If all were at the same height, no one would see the horizon. No one would see ambition. No one would see the future. This is never the case.

A Critique on Socialism – Part II – “Love is the Modesty of a Home”

“You offer a pauper love, then he or she will not recognize it. They cannot eat love. They cannot drink love. They do not understand that, even as a metaphor.”

Q: Why is it that you believe modesty is related to love?

A: It is because when one does away with clothing, one does away with modesty. After doing this, one only sees their own flesh. One sees truth, and truth always frightens the individual. Modesty is, therefore, the protection of truth, or even the burying of truth.

Q: And what is that truth, or could you describe it?

A: All truths, be they many, reside upon the flesh. The surface of the land, in before there are inhabitants walking on the surface of that land, hide all things that were life, but are now dead, below it. Ashes, as the word follows, are beneath the earth, having adopted the role of fertilizer.

Q: Then, truth is the flesh, and how is it that people are frightened?

A: In the same way that people are frightened or humiliated by their own nudity in public, it is not so the same with the harlot. She will show her nudity out of a shameless endeavor. This occurs naturally as well in the woman who is married to her spouse. She shows nudity without any shame. Though, such fear is also there for the rapist and the girl, as the girl feels total shame and more, for such a terrible experience.

Q: What is above truth?

A: Love is above truth.

Q: Why is love above truth? Isn’t truth linked to love?

A: In understanding what I am saying, there are tyrants who find the truth to be so appealing, that they would laugh at it. In doing so, they seek to hide it. On the opposite end, there are those who are not tyrants, though when they see the truth, they weep before its presence. These are the people who reveal it. Weeping in either happiness or sadness, for tears also come when people laugh. Truth is hidden by love, in the same fashion as truth is recognized for how it appears. Truth is always recognized. Suspicion and paranoia are the seekers of truth.

Q: Though, why does a person ever hide truth? Why is it that love should hide truth from another person?

A: Out of kindness.

Q: Kindness?

A: Kindness is the reason why someone who loves another may hide the truth out of love for them. Even when a tyrant recognizes what is truthful, he will hide it. He will hide out of a sinister sort of kindness against those he aims to fill with denial. As love is also a motivation, it motivates a true loving someone to also hide truth, so that the truth does not hurt truly hurt another. Have there been those who hide such truth, out of kindness for those who may become victims to a revolt, should the truth be discovered? Yes, it has continually happened. Although, it is because the word “kindness” is merely a slave at the command of either deception or honesty.

Q: And what is below truth?

A: Death.

Q: Death is below truth? How is this?

A: Reality is not the same thing as truth. Reality is merely clarity. Truth is awareness, and opposite from blindness and conformity. A skeleton is related to a pauper, because the pauper is most likely emaciated. Above that skeleton is flesh; that is truth. Above that truth is modesty; that is love, or clothing, or shelter, or a home.

Q: What do the impoverished desire?

A: What the impoverished desire differs from what someone who is not impoverished desires for the impoverished. Through recognition, the wealthy comprehend love, because they have a home, easily able to shelter a pauper. Though, the pauper will not recognize that love from that wealthy one, who might be selfless. They will, in fact, merely recognize that wealthy one, as wealthy, whose wealth could be spared.

Q: So what does one do for the impoverished?

A: You offer a pauper love, then he or she will not recognize it. They cannot eat love. They cannot drink love. They do not understand that, even as a metaphor. They will recognize flesh, because that is their yearning. Offer a pauper flesh, and they will recognize truth. For as both truth and love be a yearning, a pauper must sate themselves with flesh, before love.

A Critique on Socialism – “Closest to Death”

Q: How does Socialism fit in with your line of thinking?

A: It seeks to bring death onto a country’s shoulders.

Q: How does it seek to do this?

A: Death is the only freedom that life can obtain, and it’s meant to be more fleeting than life. Death is recognized, before one comprehends, through hope, that they are alive. Death is never meant to be superior to life.

Q: Are you to say that the impoverished are not meant to be superior to life?

A: That is what I mean.

Q: What is your belief on superiority?

A: To raise oneself, for if we saw all impoverished as dead, they would not move. In fact, not even the most hopeful of Saints would be able to offer that dead pauper a piece of bread. Do we, as humans, desire to escape? Is escapism supposed to be eternal? If so, then we are all dead.

Q: Should one take pride in being dead?

A: For the current moment.

Q: For the current moment?

A: As long as anesthesia is in existence, for the surgeries meant to represent the pain of life and the pain in obtaining safety, there will be hope.

Q: How does one find rest?

A: By being dead.

Q: Does that mean you support Marxism?

A: No, it means I support death.

Q: Explain yourself.

A: Death is the only freedom that life can obtain, as I’ve already mentioned. Marxism always brings poverty to a nation, because it believes in “everlasting freedom and equality”. What is more the equality than to see the greatest of reality, and that is, death? In offering freedom, you offer rest. You offer poverty, because in poverty, you cannot be closer to death when hugging the ground. One is not alive in this scenario. One is closest to death, with but a slow pulse running through their veins.