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 – “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.

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 all Truth is Simple” – 9/9/2020

“Characterize truth as complex, and one is back to the problem, the question for what the answer is. For is the answer not the given truth? To be left in the dark, to be left in ignorance, is the problem. To search for the truth, is to search for simplicity. No truth can be complex like the question, like the confusion, like the disarrangement. The one who found the truth even more complex than the question for it, is the one who discovered but another lie.”

– 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

Quote – “The Fool who Dislikes the Facts” – 9/4/2020

“It matters little whether one approves or disapproves, or likes or dislikes, or agrees or disagrees with the facts. What does matter is the immediate acceptance of them, regardless of one’s personal feelings towards them.”

– Modern Romanticism

Philosophy – “The Stupidities & Intelligence of Men & Women” – 9/2/2020

“A generalization is not so much the trivialization of a person, place, or thing. It is more the act of simplifying a person, place, or thing so that ambition, as a drive for stupidity, does not bring in a chaotic mentality.”

– Modern Romanticism

A man is direct, and straightforward. He is weak, when he holds back, though he is smarter when he does. Intelligence always operates on the aspect of vulnerability. That is because for a man, he will go straight, and onward enough to smash into a wall. Then, rather than attempting to understand the wall, fathom the obstacle for why it has been placed in his way, he will merely drive it down.

Men and their ambitions make them forward-thinkers. As a stupid one, such “forward-thinking” will always meet obstacles. To crush them all, makes the man an idiot. What does a woman do, when she has been the observant one to a man’s predictable Nature? She wishes to be forward-thinking. She looks to him, says that her being “held back” is an oppression, and then goes to aim for his exact motives, to replicate them. It is the same as her looking at her own reflection to apply the cosmetic, and seeing something hideous. She then embraces that ugliness, not ever wishing to only be seen as beautiful. For a man is an ugly fool, whenever he is a forward-thinker. A man is plain, in this sense. When a woman imitates this, she is also plain, as it is known of her to accept that.

All the intelligence of a man is in his need to understand. To use his ears, over his eyes, and pay attention. He must pay attention to a woman. He must pay attention to sounds, not only sights. His recognition of beauty, is his recognition of a woman. His sight upon her, is his penetrative gaze past such beauty. Though, if a man remains stuck upon appearances, then to him, it is another obstacle. If he breaks her, whether physically or with manipulation, then he is an idiot. He is an idiot to break what he cannot be honest with, for that would require vulnerability.

A woman’s intelligence comes when she finds it not worthwhile to give into vanity. To “have it all”, as some might say. A woman’s vanity, being an innate trait that can be given connection to her curiosity, is her desire to touch everything. As unpredictable as a woman is, it is because she represents change. If a woman speaks openly about change and choice, then she is speaking about vanity. Choice connects to “diversity”, while “diversity” connects to an endless source of colors. Colors are always infinite, so her intelligence would come from mere observation to them. To listen to who tempts her, however, would result in her touch. Her touch, would pull down what has been build upward.

If a woman has more of a chance to develop Alzheimer’s Disease, then it only means that she has been using her ears more, over her eyes. What she sees, enables her curiosity. Though, her eyes are only used after she has heard what pulls her in, for the sake of temptation. What she sees, is always another imitation of her beauty. Another attraction, that is, being what pulls her. What she touches, is a thing chosen, centered among the numerous choices and colors of this world.

Within vanity, there is chaos. Within chaos, there is change. Within change, there is infinity within the range of choices.

A man’s intelligence comes to counter the comprehension to what he believes should be destroyed, by his hands. Rather, he will mold to improve, and not destroy to remove, the ugliness into beauty.

A woman’s intelligence comes from her being able to use more of her eyes, over her ears. This makes her able to give less into temptation, from what is spoken to her, by fork-tongued tempters.