Philosophy – “The Importance of Black & White Decisions” – 5/21/2021

“Between choosing what is right or what is wrong comes down to having no choice but the correct one or to have infinite excuses to never make the correct choice.”

– Modern Romanticism

Some would shun away from such a notion that there is “right” or “wrong” within a set of choices. Even if those choices happen to be among the dozens or hundreds, then just like a tournament, it will dwindle down to just two.

No one wishes for a third choice, unless one wants to make an excuse. Out of those two, instinct, in terms of a person’s bravery, would draw them, as the individual, towards what is correct to choose. Out of the hundreds, or thousands, or millions, up to the infinite amount of choices to make, all comes down to a duality. A parallel, of sorts, because to have a decision to make is to exclude distractions and the excess.

To any of two choices, one will prevail, while the other will be discarded. It is to say, for anyone who can comprehend this, that to have one choice is to have none at all. That is where instinct comes into play. Because, when one makes the correct choice, one did not choose. One merely chose what was right, as it required no time to contemplate. It is to say that one already knew what to choose, before the options were open. Between familiarity and something that is alien and unfamiliar, there is simply the choice between the singular former and the plural latter.

The factor of “responsibility” does not enter for the decision, itself. It enters during the consequences of the decision. The decision, that was indeed a decision, bringing about cause and effect. Crime and punishment. Such is what a decision makes it out to be. The more choice, the more wrongdoing. The less choice, the more creation.

Would a woman, who decides on an abortion, comprehend any of the above? That, for her to make a choice, is to excuse the responsibility of consequence? Or, to excuse the consequence of responsibility? If she chooses for it, then she has chosen a method for destruction, being the incorrect one. For her to fight for choice, is to fight for excuse. It is, however, the opposite when a mother would find it nearly impossible to choose a child out of two, already grown, to die, when a criminal is pointing a gun at either or. Such a mother, with two grown children, would not be choosing for her offspring to live. Since all choices comes down to the death of correctness (or creation), then it is all rightness behind such correctness that would not be a choice.

We either choose to die, or to have no choice but to live so that we may be responsible for the consequences of our choices. All mistakes are based on a choice, because if we never learned from our errors, then we’d keep making excuses to never form wisdom. Though, when we do learn from our mistakes, we then have no choice but to the correct path. Unless, of course, we did not actually learn, though merely deceived everyone for regained trust.

Of decisions that have caused others, or ourselves, the pain, this is where individualism glows the brightest. It is so a person may see and objectively understand their mistakes, formed from endless excuse.

If we excuse responsibility, then we do the same for life. We would be negligent of it, or to simply outright destroy it.

Quote – “The Definition of an Interpretation” – 7/16/2020

“An interpretation holds a singular meaning: to splinter away what is perceived to be a whole, into now an incompletion. The incomplete picture is the entire picture interpreted. One can look at what it means to interpret something like tearing off a fragment of a portrait painting, such as the drawn-in mouth, so that only the nose, eyes, and cheeks remain. An interpretation is to simply pull away a portion of what was once complete, to now be incomplete.”

– A Fine Line for Justice

Quote – “Why to not Interpret Justice” – 5/30/2020

“Over the meaning of life, justice has no meaning to any interpretation, other than how justice defines itself. It is a danger to interpret justice. As much as a person would want the liberty of doing so, interpreting justice would mean to have one’s own brand of it, making their ‘form of justice’ more-so suited with the meaning of vengeance.

Perhaps it is also the case that anyone’s form of doing one thing, inevitably turns their motives into that of personal greed and desire. The gain, versus the selfless act of fighting for another.”

– Anonymous

Quote – “A Need to not Tolerate Interpretation” – 5/30/2020

“Think of the ‘interpretation’ of an event, of an individual, of any single thing the two eyes of someone can lay upon, as falling on the side of ‘personal desire’ versus ‘justice’. No one should be allowed to interpret what justice means, in this world. There are certain things to know, certain rules to follow, that are supposed to have the strictest set of laws so that those followings are never broken. Give people enough freedom, and they will fall on that realm of ‘personal desire’ versus ‘justice’. Do not claim vengeance to be the same as justice, and do not claim ‘your’ breed of justice to be any different from anyone else’s. There is no freedom to the word ‘justice’. There is only freedom to the word ‘interpretation’, as that is a freedom to create the onset of pitiful human desire.”

– Anonymous