Philosopher – Modern Romanticism

Philosophy Series – Pt. 1 – “Why Anger is Mute” – 9/28/2021

“Nothing deprives the soul so much as to build a dam of fire, a wall of flame, around what is intended to flood the self. These are waters meant to reveal reflections, to an understanding from the external individual who can look within what is grief. As anger is built, in vain, around sadness, it becomes nothing of the former than can tell a story when it is the latter that shows a mirror.”
– Modern Romanticism

Anger holds no voice. No amount of shouts nor crazed jeers can tell the tale that exists within. It is oil that cannot mix with water, remaining of itself at the surface. When it burns, it is a shield. A flame shield, so to speak, that conceals what is essentially hurt. Anger does not express, as it covers when it supposed to be the flood. The flood, being of grief, will not result from sheer anger. It results when the anger is dropped, only for the grief to be left. Would the grief be left, then there is no cover, just as the concealment to a book is the same. What is left, is the story.

A story told, through sadness, is because anger is gone. No one can control anger, because no one can contain a flame that is meant to be out of control when it destroys. Anger destroys. Through it, no control is maintained when the enraged individual has no intention on subduing themselves. It is through anger, that because it is an addiction, there is supposed strength. The enraged individual believes their anger is a strength, not a weakness. Though, in reality, it is a weakness. Through tears, people are strong. With tears, people come together in the reflections that reveal understanding.

Quote – “Why Journalism is Dead” – 9/23/2021

“Information is not the display of humanity. Its sheerness cannot be questioned with the feelings of a heart, though just debated with through the thoughts from the mind. As with all emotions, it never occurred. An emotion is a falsehood, when blended in with factual information. Involving emotions to the journalistic endeavors writes the stories of fiction. Since the film is the same for its lack of realness, being fiction, then nothing of what is captured for journalism’s stories should be confused for what went wrong with what is wrong.”
– Modern Romanticism

Excerpt – “As Love is more Logical than Science” – 7/13/2021

In love displaying no function, makes among emotions the manipulative assets or resources that a business world would hold for advantageous gain. Material gain, that is, since among function there are the manipulated emotions that reveal their short-term use. What is most useful is also considered the most logical, though within the short-term. Comprehensive of this, makes then of the short-term logic as illogical for the long-term. It is then to understand that love, through its non-functional nor utilitarian nature, cannot be considered for short-term logic. Regarding love in its eternal essence, makes it logical within the long-term.
– A Two-Step Sequence to Problem-Solving: From Delicate Heart to Resourceful Mind

Philosophy – “Why Society is Never to Blame” – 4/12/2021

“The collective organization is only ever aware of its individualized imperfections. In denial, however, the idea of ‘change’ comes to the mind of one who stands for collectivism by whatever is altered. It is the denial of what should be trusted. Through collective change, individualized imperfection is ignored for the sake of a perfected group.”
– Modern Romanticism

Even then, to be stronger when together, does not equal perfection. Perfection is not a discernable thing to human eyes. As humans perceive only for what they trust, comes either with the ease of it or its very hardship to wishing to break from stagnating comfort. It should then be said that we are imperfect, when together. So imperfect, because the station of togetherness remarks vulnerability.

Humans, when together, when in cooperation upon mutual issues, can form solutions through their vulnerability. It is then to say that we are not stronger when together, though weaker. We are necessarily weaker, so that when the collective breaks to form individualized persons, they are better able to comprehend their individuality.

Why should society be to blame, when it is always the individual who can be stubborn enough to never break within the collective?

If all the collective knows of is to be the army of brute force, then that is where individualism is rejected. Coming together, even as one, must mean to be more frail than ever.

Even in love, coming together ‘as one’ can result in a broken heart. One must consign themselves to the necessity of that brokenness, if never for the forfeit of such togetherness. It is around those whom we trust, where we are willing to break. We do not break those we trust. Instead, we willingly break ourselves, for the sake of our betterment. Individualized betterment, for that is how a person can better trust what is before themselves.

Philosophy – “The Prime Reason ‘Lockdowns’ do not Work” – 2/3/2021

“How often were diseases transacted from slave to slave, as they were mere cattle upon their ships from one continent to the next?”
– Modern Romanticism

These ongoing pathetic attempts at culling the spread of the virus, through “lockdowns”, have actually culled human beings. Recall an idiotic Democrat philosophy of believing that if guns are restricted, then crime vanishes. The pitiful and deceptive “sympathies” of the political realm for the public, do not bode well for what can be objectively comprehended. As it should always be repeated, a politician is incapable of empathy.

What should be observed of the world, is the simple notion that restrictions only ever open the opportunities for the objectively bad to have as an advantage. Should not the virus, itself, not the people, have the restrictions? If that were ever the case, then we’d understand any government as competent.

We should understand, as a universal people, that as restrictions are enforced, such governments are tackling the cure, rather than the issue.

The virus, and never the people, should have the restrictions. When we restrict people, we do not restrict the virus. We free the virus. For the virus craves the limited freedom and the ongoing fears of the public. Specifically, fear is an emotion that guarantees the doom of a person, because their lack of calmness does not guarantee survival. What person, during any time in history, has ever survived while not calm?

Fear upon the people, not the virus, and restrictions upon the people, not the virus, is counter-effective to the problem, at large.

To take a criminal, for example, who no longer feels fear, no longer has any bars against their ways to spread chaos, is the one with great opportunities to bring about more damage. The virus shows the same example. Even if the virus cannot literally feel fear, it understands opportunity. It understands than an opportunity is an open window, as a gap to squeeze through, such as any restriction that is like raising a wall of a defense. Are the governments so gullible to believe that if one raises a wall, as a defense or restriction against the virus, that it is indestructible? Would not a wall or restriction not have a crack in it, exposed as a weakness?

Philosophy – “The Wrongs in Humanity being an Active Focus” – 12/23/2020

“Arrange in any mind the opposite towards what would occur, upon the question that states, ‘What am I?’ Does one comprehend their own identity as a universal understanding among all others, or does it become a special understanding that is segregated from humanity, itself?”
– Modern Romanticism

A monster is humanity not gone, though buried, beneath the Hell a person all feels, suffers from, and releases upon others. How then must a person question their humanity, if not already a monster, if not already confused upon their origin? Are not all origins a light, to then cast a shadow? If one has found comfort in the shadow, then they no longer look upon the light. In their minds, they find themselves to be lost.

Humanity does not need to be a focus. It needs to remain passive, not ever active, in what we innately comprehend of ourselves. That is, to actively believe we should all “be better as human beings”, inevitably causes the opposite to occur. As it is, there is a difference between the active action upon what would be described as “change”, versus the passive realization upon what would be described as “improvement” for another’s life. To be more human, therefore, if made as an active or activist way, becomes more-so the causation of people into more chaotic persons.

As a focus, one realizes their humanity came to be, at birth, though would not remember themselves, with the future. Would one then need to remind themselves they are not a psychopath? Would such a reminder become a training upon the mind? Why must it be an active movement to comprehend ourselves as not monsters, though simply human? It should then be assumed that only a monster would question their humanity.

To then oppose upon others that their humanity is forgone, would make such active or activist groups who promote humanity, become also displayed as the only sorts to be human. They become the special ones, all seeks to recruit more specialness into their fold. Again, how is it to be human, anything special? One should only be “deemed special”, as a human, when they have personally engaged with a broken person, to then become a friend who is special to said hurt individual. That is, people are only special, when they are held in a certain light by another. Such would mean that no one is special simply by their personal admittance to it.

Philosophy – “Societal Breeding of Categorical Minorities” – 12/21/2020

“One’s empathy become crossed out in the sand, as one’s desire to aid becomes extinguished, all in the most automatic fashion, soon when they believe people should be categorized.”
– Modern Romanticism

Categories of people? Groups of people? Segregation of minorities into lists of each? All of this is against the empathy that rules what is understood as unity.

It is in the categorization of people, that those groups become certain armies, given special training for special circumstances. Empathy become omitted, by that categorizing person’s deliberate intent to stray away from understanding all as equal. By comprehending certain people to be categorized, such makes the categorizing one as someone who believes in the need to know what is expendable. It is the same as understanding what is written upon a restaurant menu. A restaurant menu can depict what is suitable for one’s hunger, versus what is bound to make one incredibly full. In comparison, such categories on a menu, upon when people are the same, makes such persons treated as expendable.

How can it not, when we look at certain minorities for how they appear in the world, versus what they are able to do? There are those who categorize them, for the sole sake of them “looking good” in the world, or appearing to be “assimilated” with everyone else. However, when empathy becomes involved in that minority’s own profession, that is special treatment. Though, when empathy becomes involved in the friendly manner, outside of the professional world, it becomes utterly appropriate.

Those who categorize human beings, are not seeking unity. They are seeking division, being the opposite. This is because when one only considers how a person appears within those groups, such aligns itself with how a person can either be living or dead. To be someone of a group, would pertain itself directly to division, due to that “being divided” is a state by which a person is no longer ordered. Appearance would relate to division, as beauty is able to decay, while action will be what relates to unity.

And, to remind oneself that appearances would relate to division, is easily comparable to the menu that displays the lists of available options. One, who is categorized, is an expendable, is never loved, is never accepted. They are merely the new introduction, as something tolerated.

Philosophy – “Why Human Responsibility is the Enemy of Progress” – 11/11/2020

“No human could immediately correct themselves, without needing convenience. Whereas, no human could form wisdom, without an extended time in suffering.”
– Modern Romanticism

To think science would be needed, if there was a way for all humans to “grow up”, is the definition of ignorance. All humans, when errored or imperfect, displaying such in their actions, when observed by scientific eyes are granted as an idea for a correction. A correction. For to correct the error of a human, is progress. Is it “progress” to say that a human has been corrected of their error, through immediate convenience. We can also say that the human form, full of errors, is the definition to things so instantaneous, like lust, exiting as quick as it entered. As it is, all human bodies enter and leave this world like the flicker of lightning. To differ the body from the mind is to differ a “temporary” aspect from an “infinite” aspect.

We could not be errored beings, without our bodies. Not at all could we be understanding of our imperfections, of our flaws, without in the knowledge that such is seen in the mirror. Of our flesh, of what has been sculpted, perhaps to the detail of an amateurish artist. We can protect, out of love, though against what if we never interact, if we live alone?

Human interaction is the necessity to which a person finds error. Through observation, we see error, we criticize it, and then find a need to correct. Though, on the side of progress, wisdom is never for its sake. As in, wisdom does not heed progress’s wish. That is, for progress seeks correction of every imperfection, instantly. It is to the same example of a wound, needing its bleeding to quit. For when the act of pressure to the wound was performed, it was immediate in its desire, as quickly as the wound was observed to be severe.

Wisdom would tell a person to find a dutifulness in responsibility. Wisdom would tell a person to not commit the same fault, twice. Wisdom would tell a person that error is inevitable, and thus, should not be believed it can be extinguished, in absolution. It would be the case, upon two occasions: love or death, making either the time when we stop seeing errors, and consent to the outcome.

It is then that wisdom makes the human not needing progress, not needing science. For if all humans were wise, heeded the need to be responsible, no immediacy of science’s offered conveniences would be necessary. It is rather a petty revelation, to which science only exists to offer convenience, at the absence of wisdom, and the continued existence of human error. For the more errors that scientific eyes can notice, the more there is to correct. It would indeed take more time, to form wisdom. Though, to what science offers, makes time our greatest impatience, and the immediate moment making our greatest desire for a cure.

Virus Talk – “A Lockdown is not the Answer” – 11/8/2020

“What leader is such, when their goal is not upon the future, though upon the passing moments? Their aim, in that sense, would be to freeze everyone in place, so that the future receives more anxiety than does the moment.”
– Modern Romanticism

Whatever fool believes one should “live for the moment”, pertaining to a lockdown, that strips us of clear vision to the future, has sold their soul for a politician’s foresight.

“Living for the moment” is one of the most obsolete mindsets, of the current day. It is the same as possessing a limited attention span, being the exact implication towards destroyed marriages. For what we cannot pay attention to, being of objective importance over anything else, makes us lose what was best.

In this manner, we should pay attention to the future, for we might learn something of our mistakes, at present.

It is always a person who commits error, in the now, so that the future can become a better focus, with wisdom attached. We are not so certain of anything until we can foresee it. Yet, if a leader, playing the role of a “politician”, does not possess the foresight and clarity enough to comprehend the consequences of a certain mistake, then they have not been paying attention. It is as simple as that. Learn from the moment, so that one’s focus on the future is as clear as the next day.

But, a lockdown? What manner of idiot believes that for the sake of the “moment”, we should believe things can be beneficial? It is the same as stalling the development, stalling trust, and stalling clarity into what inevitably will take place. For when we focus solely on the short-term, the long-term becomes unclear. We are blinded to the future, making the travesties of the current time, become the future. It becomes the future, making all manner of sickness as eternal in its lasting.

To the true leader, allowing people their freedom, means to allow them to choose between life or death. If a pandemic is afoot, then what occurred to the idea of “The strongest will prevail”? If the world shows signs of its collapse, then why place more weight on it? If we are not moving, then we can only be pressed further into the ground, by standing on each other, “in the moment”.

Allow death to be the consequence of idiocy, while actual leadership comprehends what the future will bring.

Philosophy – “The Flaws of Abstract Art” – 11/3/2020

“Were humans be able to comprehend each other, with ease, we’d do so, through art.”
– Modern Romanticism

It is like grief, where we lose something we found to be more valuable than us, that such sadness becomes a universal understanding. We are not limited by our sadness, for tears are always infinite. The suicidal person may indeed exit this world, in the same way they entered it. Weeping. Yet, the joys of this world come with tears, too, only they are sweet.

From grief, to joys, to all manner of emotion, such universal aspects are not achieved with abstraction. The confusion that relates to a viewer of such abstract “art”, is not in relation to the universal truth of what Creation is meant to be. An understanding. Of ease, in that comprehension, makes up art. Why should we not be the ones to see perfection in the flaws? Yet, if abstract art is purified flaw, then there’s nothing universal of it. It is merely the confusion that sets us apart, through ignorance.

When a painting or a song allows us to feel, such rising emotions are what all can comprehend. To see a painting that might depict the loss of a child, will relate to any viewer who understands the “pain of loss”. The pain of loss, or the hopes that can also be shared through art, are not of abstraction. Again, “abstraction” is merely the depiction of division. Division, for that is not the connection that a universal understanding would bring.

Abstraction, while it defines itself as a “breaking” of rules and boundaries, is essentially just division. Though, the viewers are especially divided among their opinions, their voices, rather than through universally comprehending what the art reveals. For what it reveals, meant to be universal, is truth. Meant to inspire, for how are we not, when we look upon something that moves us? Stirs us, due to that such an artwork made us feel what we normally avoid?

Humans have a tendency to avoid such secrets, of themselves, as they begin to dream of them when it is dark. It is dark, as such dreams are the light that we, at first chose not to make as art during daytime. As such, we are meant to take what we see, in our subconscious, because that is the artist’s inspiration. Truth. It is because “truth” stands for what we can reveal, out of courage, so that a viewer, or listener, or reader may also understand what they’re avoiding of themselves.

Quote – “The Differences of Criticism” – 9/19/2020

“As hatred cannot be offered by use of words, then it falls to criticism to undertake speech made through use of intellect or idiocy. For when the former takes place, being of intellect, then it is the debate that stages the ground. When it is the latter taking place, being that of idiocy, there is no intellect, and there is merely the insult being hurled.”
– Modern Romanticism

Quote – “Why Love Never Dies” – 9/6/2020

“Not the love, but the trust, that quits its breath. For nothing hurts more of the ended romance, than knowing we still love them. Such means, that not love, but the trust, always dies. We love them, still remaining hurt, though our trust, our closeness, is now the parting. For as love dwells in the mind, as trust is for the body, then we cannot believe love will die, so long as memories remain.”
– Modern Romanticism