Philosophers – 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 – “Why Pride is not Valid, without Proof” – 1/2/2021

“To be proud, one must have proof for the external creation of a thing. If for internal creation, then how is proof for identity the case of simple admittance, if one cannot show validity? Would no proof for identity simply be the raw deception, because that evidence is lacking?”
– Modern Romanticism

Swapping identities, would require proof for it. Just as a name change must require validity for it, as well, then so should every form of identity require that evidence. If not, then it is nothing more than deception. However, for pride’s sake, creation should not be allowed to compel a person to feel such, when they have no proof of their acts to what was formed. For the sake of pride, a person must show proof of action, not a display of words. At the same time as one cannot simply state aloud their identity, is for the same reason that anything else held for pride must be proven of action, not words.

Neither pride nor identity is valid, without its show, not tell, of proof. A person leads themselves, understands others, through examples of truth, not through the force of their words into the listener’s ear. For that would be the same as seeing the self, while ruling over others, through deception. There’d be no room for the truth that should compel a person to also identify with someone else. If a leader has a way with identifying with their population, then it is to truth that they follow. If their examples are through proof of action, while it is words that are seen as an atrocity, then it is deception that the opposition follows on their own. An individual, as a leader, cannot be truthful neither to themselves nor to others, when they cannot identity with another based on what they prove through a show of it. It is the case that no person has a real command over their own speech, if they have no way to show what they admit.

Would a person simply say, “I saw Jesus Christ in my backyard?” and be expected that this can be taken seriously? Is the culture of “anything goes” merely following the pathway of deception? If that be the case, then why follow it at all? If a person cannot be taken seriously on them stating that a UFO landed in their driveway, then why should we, for instance, take seriously a person who says they have a different gender? Can proof be offered for that, or is it simply at outward, spoken admittance to it? And, if they are prideful to this sudden realization of themselves, though there is still no proof, then there must be deception to which they follow.

It is simply the case that if there is no proof, then one is lying in the attempt to get another to believe them. Neither pride for identity can offer validity of who or what someone is, without that evidence. If this were simply the case, then Atheism would never be a way for certain people. Without evidence, a Christian could say to an Atheist the words, “God exists” and the latter would believe the former.

Philosophy – “Why Choice is the same as Division” – 12/27/2020

“Comprehend that choice is the one division that relates to division, itself. As much as we choose, we choose for diversity’s sake. Diversity. The word that belongs to the slave-master. The connoisseur of differing flavors who manages to discover merely his favorite, not the beloved to which sprouted from someplace beyond his knowledge.”
– Modern Romanticism

Nothing we loved, was ever chosen. It is love that never pertains to choice. We cannot speak of love, when we constantly speak of choice. We are not allowed to do so, unless our desire is to intentionally contradict ourselves.

Love is unchosen. A beloved is unchosen. No loved one is chosen.

It is because a choice is something that stems across to life’s destruction. That is because in the relation to choice upon what we are meant to be responsible for, of who we love, we cannot say it is our choice to care for them. To say it was merely a choice, pertains to the idea that such a supposedly responsible person had another. As in, they had another choice, outside of the care for another that should pertain to having no choice, at all.

If a person says to someone else, “It was my choice to care for you,” it is to mean they had to debate on them either caring for that person, or to do something else. This would mean their act of care for that person was not as important as to be not ever a choice. If a person must admit that it was their choice to care for another, then there is no love for that person. There is none, for love should be as instantaneous as to require no contemplation, upon what to do.

For choices to be what is not love, makes a decision relate always to death. We dispose of a life, for we could not love that person who we selected to die. We therefore divide from ourselves, or from other loved ones, that person selected to be slaughtered.

That is a choice.

That is division.

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 – “Empowerment is the Path to Addiction” – 12/11/2020

“External reliance motivates a person to see the beyond. Does anyone question if ‘the beyond’ resides beyond human capability? It is ‘the beyond’ to stare into a direction from where one currently stands. To advance, to the average person, would mean to achieve. Though, does this contradict the knowledge of a person, to how they should limit themselves?”
– Modern Romanticism

Capability makes a person efficient, in where their current skills dwell. If their desire is to advance, then they’d not stare very much ahead, at quite a length in direction, if they intend to do this in rapid succession of so-called improvements. When one has a voice, has an idea spoken from their lips, it can be randomized in whatever direction it takes. Chaos spews, just as a tree grows endless twigs. When one never looks over their shoulder, to remember their painful beginning, they become lost in their own arrangements.

The beginning of a person is how one was most tried. To remember those trials, those tests, makes one automatically grateful to where one stands, at the current level. To each step, is where any person can become evermore grateful when looking over their shoulder to review the previous one. Life does not guarantee satisfaction, unless when one stops to do this.

If empowerment is less of internal reliance, though more of an endless path towards needed or unneeded progression, then it becomes an addiction of pursuits. One’s madness becomes acute, upon when gratitude can never come into their own picture. One’s madness, or one’s own personal dissatisfaction, cannot ever be personally accepted, for no person ever develops, or advances, without trust in right areas. Those “right areas” can only be described as placing trust in what will never simply be in one’s life for the short-term. For we do not treat people like addictions, nor distractions, if we do hold them in a genuine heart.

Short-term effects take a person nowhere, unless to remind one of something they lack, being of what could last. Addiction is that, being of something short-lived, never to be held in one’s memory for eternity. Even of the person who remembers their “best meal”, would only do so because of how it was made, not because of how it fueled them. They remember the ingredients, the toppings, and of all details to that arrangement. Was one grateful, to that? They were so, by how it was made by whatever skills the careful cook took to make it. One can get lost in remembrances, becoming lost to the current time, as well as to be lost in the current time, when never remembering neither pleasures nor the pains of the past. Gratitude comes when we can express it either for what protects us, in the now, or what pushed us forward, in the past.

To be empowered, would mean to find comfort in short-term effects. It’s the same as being uncertain for when one’s phone will die. It means to be caught in the effects of one’s own fears, remaining frozen without ever truly advancing. It is because to “truly advance” would mean to place trust in long-term effects, as was already mentioned. Just as life, we are like the cellphone, put on a supply of battery, before we run out and stop functioning.

The question becomes, does a person accept belonging to the current, forever unknown of the future, because they never plan? Or, does a person plan ahead, because they wish to retain control over their own lives? It becomes the matter of what a phone becomes, if it could control itself, beyond the touch of human hands, of external reliance.

Philosophy – “Why Racism is a Product of Fear” – 12/2/2020

“The greatest weakness of all is for one to believe they lack it.”
– Modern Romanticism

In a realm of situations, there are specifics. In one pointed out situation, there’d be a person who could say, “It is subjective for what one thinks.” Though, that situation was merely broken down from all others, alike it. To the specific situation of prejudice, it is like all others. For there is a universal trait that we do not normally consider. We’d not consider it, since it would expose human flaw.

It is fear that we do not consider.

Fear is universal in each situation of prejudice. Among all those situations, that unifying factor could indeed be the key to unity. Among all human weakness, people are joined together to heal.

Fear is a weakness, there for either the soothing of it, or the exploitation of it. Since the latter option is always available, no human openly admits to what they fear, on normal circumstances. In fact, who would admit their fears to a stranger? Who would, besides those who are never heeding caution upon that stranger, that such an unknown person might exploit it? For it is that humans always come upon strangers, and it is that a stranger becomes a friend when they are trusted.

Trusted for fears? That requires closeness. To be close, would mean to mend such weakness, that through togetherness, two people fear nothing. For they are no longer alone, when holding hands of differently-colored lights.

Beauty is that which always is weak. We are weak, when beautiful. As it is, “beauty” should only be defined as what makes us lost in ourselves, at first unable to trust anyone with our history. We hold beauties within ourselves, about ourselves, saved for the acceptance by another. We do not loosely toss truths about, anymore than we should nonchalantly tell a mother her child has died. Humans hoards their truths, being same as all things beautiful, saved for a person who could accept it, and continually compliment them. A man can call a woman “beautiful”, as she’d never thought of herself in such a manner. Then, that man is trusted by her, if his words were sincere. As it is, all things so beautiful come together, are unified. Though, weakness still remains, since further insecurities will lead to needing further reassurance.

Who can one trust, without looking into the eyes, without being close? And, if one is betrayed, one still learns. One has learned what shouldn’t be, versus what should. One has learned the falsehoods from the truths.

Again, could fear be our admitted element, out of us, to the open where in each of these situations of prejudice, we are unified? We can know such truths, to not be distant out of ignorance and fear. We can see past the surface, past the skin, past the eyes, to the mind and heart of an individual.

We need not be so ripped apart, as a wound is when the flesh has come undone. For we can also penetrate flesh with empathy. We can make a person weep, without stabbing them. We can hold what is trusted, in our arms, without betraying them. For if we did stab them in the back, they’d be ripped free from us, once again. Is that the “freedom” people wish for?

Love is the mighty forgiveness, of this world. It forgives histories, grievances, among all flaws a person had placed entirely too much focus upon. After death, forgiveness is the power that forgets negatives, as it remembers the positives that had made a person live.

Though, if fear could be the singular flaw, that instead of stabbing a person, could be admitted, then the other side could, too.

We can admit to being so afraid, that we all clash together, not as fire, though as water, as tears. We could break as the waves, against the rocks that be the earth at our feet. Why don’t we?

No situation of prejudice is so different, that this universal aspect of fear cannot be the key to surrendering ourselves to who is meant to be loved.

Philosophy – “Why an Artist should not Explain their Work” – 12/1/2020

“Meaning. As a word, it should explain itself.”
– Modern Romanticism

Art has meaning. It has meaning within meaning. It has layers of its own meaning. Each layer descends atop the previous one, just as clothing for a woman might be removed to reveal the beautiful and vulnerable sculpture beneath.

Peel back the layers, and one sees truth. Yet, it should be done, immediately. Why must an artist need to explain meaning? Upon when a viewer becomes confused to the “message” behind a work, why should someone else, even the artist, explain it, to remedy the confusion? If such becomes the case, then the artist has failed is their attempt to make meaning universal. They’ve become among the arrogant of this world, believing their meaning to be “specific” to them, rather than creating art that can connect. For it is only the narcissist who sees their reflection in its specific shape, not ever daring to see another’s.

Art is never narcissistic, never egotistical, never selective upon who is considered to matter, when it connects through what has depth. Of depth, there is meaning. Among everything meaningful, we are each meant to see ourselves, as humans, as all vulnerable, as all bared to the reflection that might be the painted canvas, before us.

Though, if the artist too much sought to make specifics, and did not implement enough meaning so universal, they will indeed attempt to explain their work. Though, such an explanation will only arrive upon a viewer’s noticeable confusion, to the art.

It can only be that this confusion results, or originates, from the innate function of a human brain that is actually questioning the art for why it is not universal. For it must be that, in their confusion, to see the art as not being “universal”, is the same to say the work is not human. As in, to connect, for connection could only ever be artistic and universal.

Why else would a viewer to art question it, if the very act of being confused is not for segregation’s sake? One can easily imagine the artist pulling the confused viewer to a quiet room, to privately explain the work, in greater detail. Though, why couldn’t the art, itself, do the explaining?

To imagine if a Comedian told a terrible joke, to the reacted confusion of their viewers for what was said, might result in further explanation for clarity’s sake. By then, the humor has dried up, and the Comedian has met failure.

“Connection” would be the implement of a Comedian to make their entire audience laugh. If there are those who did not find the Comedian’s jokes to be humorous, to then begin scorning them, it could only be that such listeners are searching for specifics by way of humor. The “specifics” aspect of this, is all to know the difference between a representation of something certain, to a representation of something universal.