Philosophy – “Why the World Doesn’t Care” – 11/21/2022

“It shows a great deal of insecurity and even a sign of one’s attitude of betrayal to forget those who are closest to this individual and soon focus on the world of what it, in its vastness of distractions, should be paying attention to.”

– Modern Romanticism

We cannot expect the world to care. It is the same as expecting someone else, whom we don’t trust, to shoulder our personal woes and hardships. Who around has such broad-enough shoulders to be able to carry what we can no longer keep inside our hearts, our heads, or in our arms? When we expect someone else to do this, especially of “the world” or of “society”, we can be extending an expression of dismissal to their woes and hardships in our effort to place a greater light upon our own. We can also be extending an expression of dismissal to those who’ve known us, since our childhood, in favor of the world with its endless sea of distractions and other priorities.

The world doesn’t care, simply because it will, at most, extend a brief glimpse upon your torment, and then turn from it in the next second. For there are only two types of people who exist, upon when experiencing their empathy for another human being. There is either the type of person who stays, or there is the type of person who leaves. Upon the latter, empathy had been short-lived, and had receded into empathy’s opposite, being sympathy. Sympathy is where a person, once having involved themselves in another’s troubles, feels safest. In that safety, the comfort of witnessing pain from afar is where they believe there will be no longer a need to involve themselves. This becomes identified of “the world”, or of strangers who state their brief expressions of kindness, to suddenly mute those expressions and twist their forms back towards their own life with its own sorrows. However, among those who stay with those they’ve claimed to love, we can no longer view these people as part of “the world”. Rather, we admit that these people are part of “our world”.

If a homeless person is seen to be begging in the streets, they are begging for something that will vanish. For that includes the giver of a scrap of extra change found at the bottom of their pocket. A homeless individual is begging for something they comprehend will not stay. The other individual who had given that supposedly needless piece of extra change will also not stay. As for the world, does it care? It does not, while a homeless person’s evident wisdom comes at knowing that their problems are not the world’s problems. The cure to their problems is not what they can beg for, because all things a homeless person has been begging for will not solve what is actually wrong. It begs the question, is something wrong with the world, or is there something wrong with us? Within “the world” or “our world”, what is truly missing?

Philosophy – “Why Skin Color Matters Little” – 8/18/2022

“A focus on exterior details maintains another focus, called ignorance. We do not comprehend a person, when we are meaning to comprehend their shell. We will begin to admit that a person, within, has always been empty. We will begin to admit that those infinite details, within, are meaningless and meant to be kept in darkness.”

– Modern Romanticism

What can there be to understand about race? Nothing. Can there be something to understand about a book’s cover, unless we are playing games of preference and prejudice? It will be only when we are playing those games upon what we trust or distrust, that an exterior detail matters more than what dwells beneath it. All among politics, differences are taken into consideration, because of its rule over divided groups. When considering a democratic nation, more groups equal more voices. However, that becomes a division of people, heading into misunderstanding. This has been because of a focus on change, being a current norm when it comes to non-conformity. When we want change, we want more diversity. When we want everything to be diverse, we want nothing to remain as similar. More groups and more voices will promote division, because it will bring into prominence a focus on exterior details. Greater focus on exterior details cannot be a focus on a person. To focus on a person, one must conform to a reality.

Among what maintains itself to be real, a human being is. Human emotions. As these are what tie into realism, understanding what hurts will not be among surface details. Understanding what hurts will be to retain a focus on internal notions, since all pain, through human emotions, resonate internally. An ideal, however, opposite from all realism, relates to talent. As in, what a person believes themselves to be born with or will admit that their identity has not been with choice involved.

Even with identities prevalent among being believed as opposite from choice, choices retain their place for trust and distrust, or for preference and prejudice. People choose, based on those exterior details. As it might not have been with choice involved to how a person comprehends themselves, choice gets involved when others will see those surface details, to inevitably turn towards or against what can be viewed as either similar or unsimilar. People’s emotions, not ever a surface detail, will be a familiarity that cannot be given prejudice. For it will be inevitably a contradiction to do this, that in telling someone else off for their display of emotions will make them appear less than human.

Race, among all other surface details, resonates with ignorance, due to how it can be compared to a book cover. Within that book, or within that person, there are infinite more details to discover. Alongside that, all details in either a book or a person resonates not with ignorance, though with knowledge. One can be prejudiced towards a book genre, through noticing artwork upon its cover, making them express their prejudice when that genre does not fall inside their preferences. However, both preference and prejudice are overridden when their efforts, to compare realities, identify one overlooked book as similar to another book. Preference and prejudice, at that state, become what gets overlooked, because ignorance never mattered. A more familiar example will be when people are given this same degree of understanding. To not be prejudiced, though to know details within a person, comes always with a desire to compare an understanding of someone else with oneself. One holds standards for what can be understood as real, not for an ideal, when these comparisons compare only similarities.

With more differences, comes more ignorance. Even when one recognizes themselves to understand themselves, a result from others will be a misunderstanding into prejudice when such a person who understands themselves has made this knowledge an exterior detail. As with book covers with their artwork to display their genre, divisions among people are viewed upon their surfaces. Knowing oneself, though also wishing for others both understand and accept them, will not have this latter wish fulfilled when such knowledge remains as a surface detail.

Philosophy – “The Hypocrisy of Activists” – 7/14/2022

“To suggest that our world shows itself as deranged, full of problems with other mounting inconsistences, will turn out, most often, to be a display of negligence to those affected by such faults. In focusing on a problem, we neglect those affected by a problem. However, if we accept this world as full of problems, our better route comes down to aiding those who have already accepted themselves as a part of their own problem.”

– Modern Romanticism

Activists will say it, that our world holds many faults. Our world, not a person attracted to said faults; because, to focus on a victim as a problem seems against their problem, as if meaning to separate victim from problem. Why has that become separate? External faults are not stagnant. They become magnets to attract others to them, usually out of incorrect choices under that same will or freedom a person holds, with a necessity to hold themselves accountable. If we state that everyone has been victimized, in some fashion, we are separating fault from person as if to mean a victim can be viewed as perfect, while external faults are all demons.

Whenever an activist will state this, that our world, not a person, shows error, they will contradict this statement when their tactics of problem-solving ever go to focus on person, not problem. If person, not problem, becomes their focus, it had been person, not problem, that had been a problem. Although, this creates true compassion, that in knowing to not be negligent requires focus on those affected by negative circumstance, an activist has more an understanding on sociology. While psychology will comprehend an individual, sociology will comprehend external grounds. To not be negligent means to always focus on a person, or an individual. To be negligent means to focus on our world, of its faults, instead of those affected by those problems.

How can one be compassionate, without realizing what defines an error? As humanity resembles sheer imperfection, always by what connects people together, being wounds and hurt, no empathy can surround focus on external problems. As empathy goes to define itself, seeing internal fault will be of it, as sociology will not be for it. How can a focus on external fault represent a compassion, ever extending to a person, when empathy compares always to internal imperfection or error?

No focus on external problems can be of compassion. Though, seeing a person as problematic, enough to change their psychology in one’s empathy to turn them down different roads, shows this compassion. Through being empathetic, we cannot assume. We know. We have that knowledge, because we have been there down that incorrect avenue to recognize its negative outcomes. If an activist sees all problems in our world, an activist will not ever focus on steering a person apart from their improper decisions, without contradicting their entire doctrine. An activist will not aid a person, though will present themselves as meant to absolve this world of its problems, perhaps with an underlying intent for there to be no more need for empathy nor humanity.

In focusing on what might be wrong of an individual, that person can be aided enough to make correct choices. From an empathetic connection, we recognize a person. To that person, it can be known, through an empathetic connection, that they have been helped when we did not commit to tasks they must learn to do. We have merely showed them a path, through displaying examples of betterment out of what we, before knowing them, had understood.

Philosophy – “Why Systems (sometimes) do not Require Change (to help people)” – 5/16/2022

“If we care to solve, we will not need as many resources. In this absence of care, resources become our supplement. We replace a heart, meant to be there within us, with material, ephemeral resources. All meant for accessibility to us cannot be always in this manner for a resource. As there can be nothing more accessible than an individual’s knowledge of self, a resource will only extend as far as to keep ourselves distracted.”

– Modern Romanticism

If it has been true, that a person who displays their habits of addiction will gain more of a likelihood for homelessness, a similar comprehension can be that one with continued replacements of material resources will show more of a likelihood for losing their heart, or themselves, among what now reveals itself as least accessible. Accessible, through what fault? Fault of that addict’s self. Desiring a resource, in place or to replace a heart, or knowledge of oneself, can be no different than wanting to sustain one’s addiction to be kept outside of one’s home.

If a system must change for this type of individual’s help, comprehension to these sorts becomes void. That remains always due to comprehending a person requiring an amount of knowing their capability. However, to view a person a victim will be to view them as incapable. That will make an incapable individual not be at all an individual, though as an incapable collective.

There can be no such thing as an incapable individual. Incapable collectives, however, exist due to not needing to be aware of individuals, within that collective, with their own separate abilities. For when Jews, during that era of WWII, were seen by Germany as still capable to take to their skills of tailor work inside of concentration camps, they were still considered Jews with no true purpose for a life.

Knowing an individual’s individualist abilities will remain an awareness to only this individual, in fullness. If a system shows desire to change to suit itself for knowing different abilities within different individuals, its change will be meaningless. This has always been due to all system’s inability to comprehend an individual enough to separate their incorrect behavior from what they understand has always been valued. For if it can be due to an addict’s addiction that rules them enough to override their value for things with their incorrect behaviors, this cannot be an awareness for anyone except for an addict. To change an institution to better benefit an individual’s ways will require knowledge of a person. Although, no amount of knowledge or resources given to a person, with their degrading faults, will replace their comprehension over themselves without such appearing as a sameness to what they have been doing to themselves, being to override their values with their behaviors with their addiction.

If a person can enter an institution to exit this place still with their faults, there cannot be a flawed institution. Instead, there remains a flawed individual or even a flawed family unit. As perhaps a secondary individual who knows this flawed individual might be their closest friend or relative, if such can be around to aid said flawed individual, it will prove better than any institution. Comprehension of an individual to all that makes them an individual with capabilities, instead of among an incapable collective, can come only from an area of individualism, not collectivism. All knowledge to a person comes from that person, themselves, or from a secondary person who knows enough to not replace that flawed individual’s knowledge of themselves, though to bring a perspective forth in light of their silence.

Philosophy – “To Debunk Pride” – 2/22/2022

“Being proud is a damning thing for the identity. Why? When you are proud for who you are, rather than what you can do, then you are the one who would favor the value of a book cover, instead of the interior pages. You would be the prejudiced one to consider the exterior’s worth over the interior. For what you see at first glance, the book cover, is the ignorance to the knowledge that only signals your fear to comprehend what is the understanding of creation. Inner details, the book’s pages, is the value of all knowledge that if a fear is bypassed to see them, will be the freedom outside of an enslaved and captive mindset.”

– Modern Romanticism

Culture is human creation. One can be said to be the betterment over the other. As one’s skills could be said to be the betterment over another, where is pride designated for this? The answer is pride is meant to be reserved for the accomplishment. If, in the accomplishment, a person had committed themselves out of harder worker than others, pride is then available to this achiever as a feeling. Then, who is able to feel pride for themselves, through their identity? Would it not be the mindset of a purest or a narcissist who states that for who they are, who they are born as, makes them better than someone else? That is, if pride is, through its innate feeling of having earned the right to display it, a matter of being able to create a thing that can be displayed, then how it is ever meant to be involved for the exterior to a person?

Is pride felt out of the freedom to express it? If so, then such freedom must have been through the knowledge of an interior, a creation, through the achievements a person took to deserve the allowance of pride. Then, is the one for pride in their identity expressing it doing so because they believe they created their identity? If so, this would mean that their interior is also their exterior, and there is nothing else to know of them. This would mean such a person, proud for simply who they are, bypassed the notion of having a skill for an achievement so that what is believed of them to once be hidden is now revealed. Again, this means that one believes themselves to have created their own identity. This would also mean that for who they are, a creation as their identity is the exterior. To them, ignorance is the same as knowledge, that through creating these identities, an exterior to a person is the same as their interior.

How is a person, proud for their identity, at all retaining freedom for the sake of the expression when someone else is only able to know this person through comprehending the interior? That would require a bypassing of fear. If unity, not division, is the place of those proud for their identity, then why believe only the self can understand the self? The self is flawed. If humans were ever omniscient, the first thing we should understand, in fullness, is ourselves. Then, believing to know ourselves, through our omniscience, will divide us from the imperfections of others when we believe our difference makes us.

Difference is a factor of wanting to be paid special attention towards, due to this being a secondary factor of narcissism that which relates to being better than another person. It is because in being different through identity, then to the expression of pride, the attention and recognition is given merely for the popularity to their supposed betterment. If one favors another’s identity through popularity, then it is no different than being the biggest fan of a celebrity who appears perfect, though is still flawed as any other human.

When the achievement is given recognition, it is because it is one better than another. Culture is human creation that does change, though only for the better or worse. Identity is a difference to the place of preference, the same as genres to books are understood from a first glance at their covers. Identity cannot be bettered. Identity can only be different, though these differences are merely given greater or lesser popularity. The same as Science-Fiction might be more the mainstream than Fantasy is also for the identity. If one is proud for who they are, they will hold the mindset of perhaps believing the Science-Fiction genre is “better” than the Fantasy genre.

Philosophy – “The Purpose of a Polarity” – 2/15/2022

“Are we meaning to make more than what simply is, being the vastness of one subject or the landscape of different views of those meant or should be given light? There is a necessity to a divide. It comes during an era of complexity. Boundless complications require their simplification. If simplification wasn’t a response to the complex, we’d not understand the complex.”

– Modern Romanticism

The world is filled with politics and genuineness, business and honesty, religion and rational thinking. The world is filled with polarities.

Most believe people in the notion that not everything is black and white. Although, even if a person attempts to reason one out of war-like or conflict-introducing thought, it was the “unique perspective” that, perhaps being outside the norm, merely was the polarity of peace to the war.

To understand the humanity or the reasons behind a person’s actions, then to mention that what was done cannot simply be “right” nor “wrong”, would also be in comprehension to how a side has been taken. Or it should be. When we understand that the soldier fought not for the right nor wrong reasons, though for their reasons, their view to which we say might be “unique” or “outside the normative ways” is also polarizing in our now-present bout of confusion. This confusion stems from knowing what is complex about a world, or about a person. A person is complex, as this is what confuses us. As humans, we divide because we crave sanity. We are not meant for confusion or the sheerness of complexity in that we are always meant to be “outside of the outside”, so we remain locked in. If we were always complex, then the soldier would not have been one, fighting for their reasons, their cause.

We simplify the complexity of the world, because without doing so, we would not understand what is complex. When we can understand what is complex, we are not constantly proud in the belief of our supposed “uniqueness”. We are not meant to be so much wishing to stand apart from all else, that we soon gain a god complex mentality.

As everyone else, as humans, our divides come from the eagerness to be sane. Our eyes find a shattered puzzle, and we meant for it to not remain as the confusing abstract. Naturally, we build the puzzle, as the same is said for an architect to a city. We build the puzzle, the same as construction workers build the shops, the hospitals, and the museums and libraries. Simplicity is the sanity, in knowing how to divide the purpose of a shopping mall from a gas station.

Philosophy – “Why Self-Help Books are Fiction” – 12/28/2021

“Telling a story, especially of another person’s life, is always fiction. It is when that story has been written for togetherness’s sake. When truth is not told, in that story, the deception in its stead will bring unity if only as a short-term distraction. A fiction tale is something that never occurred, and the more a reader to a story is distracted from reality into fantasy, their knowledge of themselves becomes less aware. A story is merely a distraction. Fiction is deception. Seeing ourselves in a character or in the author’s feelings is simply a way to not feel alone with the self’s own burdens.”

– Modern Romanticism

If to tell the truth, then tell it of the self. Understand the self. Then, tear the self apart. Tear your own image, the capturing of yourself upon photographs, into shreds. Shatter your own mirror, your current comprehension of where you reside, both of body and mind.

Self-help books are there to tell a reader that their own faults are not in a scape of loneliness. However, to come to the realization, and then the reminder of what is truthful, being that loneliness, is how any addict ignores the truth or a necessity. Insecurity is addicted to the concept of blending another with the self, without inherently comprehending it in automation. As in, we are insecure when we must be reminded that we are not alone.

All people are subject to insecurity. No one is immune. Writing this as a hypocrite, there are always the addictions, to all persons, to differing mirrors at different directions. At those directions, we believe we might see something different from ourselves, because our addiction to fleeing loneliness has kept us broken. In being broken, we want a new story. We crave comparison and also contrast from the details to our life. Soon, we begin to see if we are special, even in our sorrows. However, all those directions will lead to the same people with their pair of broken arms. They each weep, without difference.

We are all selfish, when we want to be reminded of our suffering. When that happens, we remind someone else, without knowing it, of their suffering.

To alleviate suffering, we should know truth by knowing it at the first glance and the first direction we face.

Self-help books have a market on the insecurities of others. One is not enough, through the same mindset of an addict for cigarettes. When does an addict stop with one dosage? One might think if that were the case, they were never an addict. Purchasing one self-help book is no more the difference to hoarding a collection of novels from differing authors. However, while a novel will be truthful, at least in the sense of being described as fiction, a self-help book deceives in stating that it is non-fiction. How is a self-help book non-fiction, when it does not tell the truth?

Self-help books do only two things:

  1. They remind a reader of their loneliness.
  2. They tell a reader to not feel alone.

Inevitably, the former overlaps onto the latter, becoming its dominant. That is because the addiction to self-help books is never fulfilling. No addiction is fulfilling. Addictions are merely a placeholder for a necessity. In this lack of fulfillment, being reminded of loneliness is the constant or the plural to the singular of being told the reader is not alone. That is, the reminder is what stays as the addiction being against or being the dominant to the truth of their loneliness.

As an addict ignores what it is they need, then so does a reader to self-help books. And what is needed is to tear apart the self to see the wounds, up-close. One must be able to smell the blood that perspires, the flesh that looks the most ragged. One must be able to feel their pain, and then shiver in a cold sweat. Although, anxiety has never killed. Insecurity never kills. It merely feels that way.

Being addicted to what never tells the truth for how wrong a person is, is common. This is to say that self-help books enable people.

Be miserable, if it is needed. Be depressed, if it is needed. If you must comprehend how sick you are, then do not deign yourself in running from it.

And do not run from others who are also sick in their own way, only to return another day to hear another story.

Love Quote – “Love, more Maddening than Lust” – 11/12/2021

“There are no fires that burn so strongly as within the furnace of love that warms hands that are cold even in the morning. There are no other pair of eyes that remain with their presence, their ungulfing stare, as those loving ones that drown what they view. Let love capture you, let love swarm you, for it will remember you. Lust forgets. Lust is a passing image, not the reflection that never leaves. As lust will skip over the heart, love will gather its scattered pieces to create a mosaic that is the beloved and lover, both. Love never wishes to die, because it is the only thing it is incapable of.”

– Modern Romanticism

Philosophy – “The Flaws with Progressivism” – 9/13/2021

“No progress has ever been made without not a negation, though a forgiveness, of the past. To forgive, not to forget, means to conceive wrong, though to place betterment ahead of it.”

– Modern Romanticism

Progressivism possesses its flaws, much of which are a reversal from common sense into emotion. Progress follows the head of common sense and logic, while emotions are meant to be tamed. How can a person call themselves “progressive”, when their views stem to ideals such as unlimited power in government or the looseness of morals? Without limitations, we have no progress. It is not progress, if it means to corrupt. It is not progress, if it means to let loose.

Progress believes in restraint. It believes not in a lack of accomplishment, though in steadiness. It should believe that sacrifice will follow the majority’s belief, not the minority. It believes that the minority is only the individual, not the collective group or category.

Continue reading “Philosophy – “The Flaws with Progressivism” – 9/13/2021″

Philosophy – “Where Humans are not meant to Store Emotions” – 9/7/2021

“No human, the doll, the tinkered instrument meant to snap either of strings to physical realness or of blinding gullibility, will perpetually be the case. All humans, the sponge, the tank flooded within that will break no matter the toughness of exterior. There is no skin the metal, nor face the mask that can guard nor conceal all things that do not hide on the surface.”

– Modern Romanticism

Weakness is not an insult. Weakness is our humanity. We are weak, when we do not want to be any longer strong. What a person protects within is always for the desire to strike out upon another, deemed weaker. The bully we can become craves to punish, even though a bully is weak, themselves. Human beings are cresting waves, as the shore is the shoulder. Tears are what push us to the brink, to the edge, that we cannot hold ourselves within. Since to hold ourselves within, is to keep humanity buried. Humans are the waves that are following a singular path. At some point, we crash, we fall, and it is the shoreline that listens.

Continue reading “Philosophy – “Where Humans are not meant to Store Emotions” – 9/7/2021″

Quote – “What it Means to Empathize with a Monster” – 7/18/2021

“Could we ever empathize with the mindset of Hitler, as a characteristic so similar in others? As all monstrous another can be, to empathize with one so beastly in state and appearance calls us to what ourselves can be feeling in their presence. Fear. We fear the monster. If such is the case, then to empathize with a monster is to know their fear. Just as Hitler had feared the Jewish people, believing them a threat to Germany. Or, just as a family evicts an addict out of their home, not out of hatred, though motivated by the fear that their influence would spread. It is usually enough to know that a monster might be pure in their evil, though never sufficient to understand a human’s darkness shows the same depth to a shade as where we hide when they will hunt for us.”

– Modern Romanticism