Philosophy – “Why Quality is not Subjective” – 5/19/2021

“The preference that relates to the numerous tastes, of differing individuals, is not at all a comparison to quality. If it is quality that compares not to the subjective opinion or personal preference, then quantity does.”

– Modern Romanticism

To judge the quality of an item, or even a person, is not to see what one prefers or even trusts. It is to see the person, able to be judged, for their lesser or higher self. To have a preference, would then mean to judge based on what one allows in their own circle. Though, to see an item or person based on their quantitative self, is to see beyond from the person who judges. It is to see another person or an object of potential quality, not merely of the self who possesses a preference.

One bypasses quality, when referencing their own preferable desires. Quality cannot be subjective, when everything related to quantity is. Quantity is subjective, not quality, because to judge on what is preferred is always in relation to the amount one associated with. Whether for preference’s sake, one wishes for a full meal at a certain time, or just an appetizer, is never about the notion of quality.

Humans prefer, because we have limits. Our greatest limit is for what we can trust, though education will be life’s motto when we no longer repeat mistakes, in the necessity (not the preference) to strengthen or reinforce a weakness.

People are trusted for the flesh, though beloved to the spirit. Therefore, we possess a limitation on how much can be consumed or adopted as a lifestyle. That is solely a preference, especially on how much one will intake. To want a full meal, or just an appetizer, is referring to the subjective notion of amount or of numbers. Though, for the quality of a thing or person, we reference what requires no contemplation, though just sheer recognition, for what is being observed. This is where specialists or experts come into play. A specialist has no preference, though can simply fathom the quality of what is being perceived that partakes to their specialty.

What can we say that is subjective of quality, if it is people who trust for the amount that can be held? If our limit is to how much we can give, then it becomes a preference as to how much a person can do without. Quality has nothing to do with this, when for its sake, we would be judging not based on amount, though by the singular.

Philosophy – “The Primary Reason for Chivalry” – 2/19/2021

“Protection is a sign of preserving intelligence, while bodies can be dispensed. For what is the difference between two models of differing appearance, and two wounded men on the battlefield whose severity of injury is also differed?”

– Modern Romanticism

If intelligence can be saved, then we have no need for seeing difference of forms where flesh is altered in contrast.

Men protect women. They do so, to keep the latter from being stupid, just like him. A man most recognizes himself as remorseful, not comprehending why he commits to all his actions.

Out of what motives, keep him committed to the most idiotic endeavors? This is a question, he does not understand of himself.

However, when a man discovers a woman, knows love, unearths this mighty force from within himself, there is purpose. Would a woman ever understand why he fell in love? There is only one reason a man falls in love. It was because he was a nothingness, before he met her.

Before meeting her, all his actions were blind. Superficial. Unimportant. Upon meeting her, his ambitions are her. They go to her. All he has built, are now hers. All he once wielded, she owns. They are gifts, of the many.

Though, his loyalty is his greatest strength.

If a woman rejects this, she leaves him powerless. She strips him of purpose, as it is the ultimate betrayal. Why would a man go through with the effort of leaving behind his past, if not to love? He loves, because he forgets. What he forgets, is the reflection of himself he cannot return to. Without her, and that image is lost. He would return to nothingness.

Then, why would he protect her, if not only to keep her from a duplication of that nothingness?

Of a woman’s continual desire to be empowered by the world, will make a man powerless. It is because, out of love, he does not want to see her fall. Though, if Nature wills it, the tale between Adam and Eve will bring The Fall of Man as an unending repetition. He will fall, for her sake. For that is what a man’s purpose is. It is also his destiny.

Pre-determined and thought out by something more divine than flesh, a man protects what cannot fall. It was his idiocy to be something of nothingness. It is now his loyalty that keeps her away from that identity.

Philosophy – “Of Art, Realism versus the Artistic” – 12/29/2020

“Some might repeat that art should remain as is, and they’d be right, if no artist was ever deceived by the idea that ‘realism’ should take more prominence on the canvas, over their surroundings.”

– Modern Romanticism

Hyper-realism, in art, possesses no “art” of itself, due to that such paintings of such realism attempt to mimic reality. Even a photograph can only become so “realistic” to the point where a limit is soon discovered. This makes the “artistic” become something so unlimited in its diversity. It makes the “realistic” become limited in what can be created from it. In fact, realism is limited to being a singular in style. Realism cannot be diversified.

An artist is the perfection, as a creator to art, though imperfect with what they’ve personally perceived, or understood, can be mimicked or replicated upon the canvas.

Individualism represents the artist, making nothing of itself able to be criticized nor corrected. How can one better their style of art, to even one’s own comprehension to who they are at their core, without all crumbling?

One can only step into another style of art, so that empathy is lived through the artist to understand another walk of life. To reveal the most realism upon the canvas would never compete with neither the photograph, nor the other artist’s hyper-realism upon their own canvas. How can realism compete with realism, if not becoming one entire painting, or one entire depiction?

As an artist steps into another style of art, they jump into another skin, and thus, become not something more, though something else. Their depiction for what is empathized with, soon becomes the portrayal upon the canvas. In this case, the “canvas” represents the repeated process of imperfection, in the same sense as a child is born.

This is an artist’s way of empathizing with something not so realistic, being of others, revealed as distortion upon the canvas. Mimicking something imperfect is a way for an artist to understand all that is possible to be perceived, or taken in direct relation. Though, it is never to the direct relation for the artist, being perfect, as much as it is more for an artist to simply replicate the distortion of what is understood. This is how an artist understands art, as art. It is a way for an artist to mimic what is seen of others, of surroundings, being of people’s imperfections, and their creation’s imperfections. As individualism cannot be corrected, it is then through unification that an artist has another color upon their palette.

And, as an artist gains inspiration from other art, it is all the same. Though, is it ever possible for an artist to become inspired at something depicted as “hyper-realistic” for the canvas?

Even of the world, of creations done by human hands, such are the imperfections than an artist mimics through a variation of styles. Though, what style is perfection? There is none, by that simply mimicking what is realistic, will halt the empathy for any imperfection meant to be repeated. Such only ever dries the cycle of empathy unto art. It is due to perfection being unable to be perceived nor understood, that any hint of it will not allow the empathy from an artist to see any “depth” to such realism.

Philosophy – “Why Diversity cannot be Forced” – 11/29/2020

“The importance of diversity is in its expression, of language. Yet, can art be forced, without the burnout of the soul? Must extreme measures be taken for the person of their language to force truth forward? Forcing diversity seems to be what makes the torturous interrogator.”

– Modern Romanticism

Forcing truth, to the surface of one’s own esophagus, is to eject diversity without its naturalism.

We are not intimate with ourselves, with what we express, with what we feel, when another means to place us “on the spot”. For those who force diversity are also people who mean to humiliate. They are the psychopaths, the extractors, and those who wish for truth to be regurgitated.

Examples of truth, of all diversity, is to the ideas of it, spoken next for speech’s sake, then made tangible and physical.

We love truth, for we trust it. We cannot love God, for we cannot care for Him. Yet, we can love God’s words, as we are silent in our attentiveness. Though, to Creation so natural as a spawned life from a womb, we cannot force without resorting to a philosophy that pertains to the inhuman. Whether inhuman or psychopathic, the “interrogator mentality” is the abomination meant to be purged without diversity for what kills.

It takes no special instrument to slay, though to extract truth? That requires genius.

Yet, it requires an equal amount of genius, not of the evil and malicious intent, to create truth. It is of example, of Creation, that truth is made. For we do not force it, when it is made, anymore than a mother must force her child out of her, during labor. Anymore than a husband rapes his wife, out of force, to impregnate her, would make the diversity; because, it will not.

Diversity is always a creation, born as an example unto it. Artists do not force it out, anymore than creativity can be turned on like a faucet.