Philosophy – Modern Romanticism

Philosophy – “Why Machines would not Understand Love” – 3/15/2023

“Between the black or the white, there is nothing but everything brought forward from a certain past into an uncertain future.”
Modern Romanticism

What a machine knows is to compute A or B from a scenario, or from a file where something can be accessed in its objective light. What it cannot do is comprehend the middle-ground where nothing can be objective, though resides upon the solid choice of the individual. A machine can bring on disappearances, though that has its role in life and its physical components. Only physical components, for only life can be taken apart, though love cannot; because the disappearance of love would be the disappearance of memories. To those memories, they define love to the connection that had been formed through moments shared with a beating heart.

Should a life die, or when it does, a person is forced to bury what remains of them, whether whole or not in their physical body. A person can bury that. Though, to love? What of love does a person bury, store, or conceal of grief, other than what is felt by them to be the most misunderstood thing to others? To that grief, a person isolates themselves. Upon that grief, love persists, and nothing could erase what a grieving person knows or what they’ve taken away at a disconnecting “goodbye”. A machine couldn’t fathom this, because a machine would see a life as a file, with its disappearance as a file’s deletion. A machine would see black or white, though not the black and the white that relates to what’s in that middle-ground where something cannot be deleted. Though, should a grief-stricken person want for their pain from their grief to disappear, one can believe that should that occur, they’d take the joyous moments away, too. For as love cannot be black or white, it would be black and white, meaning that what’s separated from one will be separated from the other.

In all of love’s pain, itself defines growth, as a metaphysical essence that is only painful because of its existence in a person’s heart. A metaphysical heart, not being the one that physically beats, has been dealt with grief’s dose of pain because of love’s eternal “life”. An existence that does not have physical form does not die. While a machine comprehends parts to make a whole, it would have to comprehend only a life’s deletion. What of love could be deleted, if not ever physical? What of love could be taken apart, when it had always been whole, not ever possible to be split into black or white?

Philosophy – “The Core Difference Between Literary Fiction & Genre Fiction” – 1/22/2023

“The ideal, the ambitious, the dream cannot exist on their own. Reality has to be what solidifies an ideal, an ambition, or a dream. Otherwise, it is as empty as vapor, and as meaningless as a promise never fulfilled.”
– Modern Romanticism

Those who have wept over characters who have died, within stories that are either centered within a genre or not, are those readers to books, viewers to films, players to video games who have comprehended the real. Why else is the reason for this, other than that such readers, viewers, players, and whomever else have come to enjoy these mere “pieces of entertainment”, though have brought themselves from reality? Those people have entered into such a fictional world, from their own realistic space. To they, with their own emotions, are identifying themselves with characters that are humanized, making the real always able to align and match with the real. Reality will remain a necessary ingredient for even what’s known as “genre fiction”, as the genre stays to be identified with the pretend, the false, and the imaginary.

Genre fiction cannot exist on its own, without a crossover from literary fiction. That must be said, because genre fiction might have its world to affect its characters; though, upon what emotion will such a world affect them? We are, as humans, bound to a world, to even our world within our minds, crafted out of memories that we have grown attached to. In being attached to those memories, we cannot say that our histories are a fantasy. If we could, we’d be able to admit that if any person could be a storyteller, to craft a piece of memorable, never forgettable, work for another to enjoy, whatever has been built within such a world cannot possibly hold a single teardrop given for its creation. A storyteller might create an imaginary world, though that imagination cannot escape from those realistic memories. Such memories, which are realistic, are only realistic because they cannot be denied. For a listener to that story, this storyteller’s memories are passed on to those who have found such a creation to be memorable.

Listeners to stories become attached to those events, brought on by characters that such listeners are a witness to, and then cannot differ them from themselves. Such means that these characters cannot be differed from all realities from that listener’s place, were they to place that fictional world aside. For even beyond that fictional world, they’ll still remember what they’ve experienced.

Literary fiction can exist on its own, because reality, as it has been said, cannot be differed in any type of context. Placed into genre fiction, reality gets identified with all others to its likeness. What is reality? It can be said that reality is merely what we say is the same as ourselves, for to repeat it, no reality can be differed. An ideal, however, can be differed from another. One person’s “perspective” is their ideal version of reality, though not reality, itself. Whether named as a perspective, an angle, or a perception, that is idealistic to an individual. All this means is that were genre fiction to ever be memorable, it must encompass even a sliver of reality. It must embrace the emotional value, for characters and humanized fantastical creatures to no longer be differed apart. One might look to a human character, identical to us, as listeners to a story, and believe it possible for that human character to show emotions. At the same time, one can look to a fantastical creature, such as a dragon, and only believe it possible for that dragon to show emotions when it becomes humanized. That is the reality that cannot be differed from all reality.

Philosophy – “Why ‘Anything Goes’ Epitomizes Deception” – 1/10/2023

“If ‘anyone’ might tell you the truth, offer you blatant evidence of whatever making, design, or origin, you are admitting that just ‘anyone’ can be trusted. Truth should be offered from those whom you trust are not there to taint its presence with deceit.”
– Modern Romanticism

“Anything goes” will not be at all relevant to truth. Truth will not be in its place, among a culture that describes this term, being “anything” or even “anyone” to be allowed freedom enough to express, while that takes place outside of specifics. With specifics, there can be truth, while whomever and whatever can be termed with this word, “any”, can be comparable to what might be offered, from an origin, that remains unknown. An unknown origin, represented of an unknown person or object, as no one’s words are credible enough to argue for that person or object’s trustworthiness. Whenever a professor might tell their students to not receive their sources, for something as a research paper, from “any” location, it will be with the subject of “credibility” in mind.

What will be “any”, as an identification among “anything” or “anyone” will be deceptive, as something like a cause, an ideal, or an entire revolution will lose sight of its original purpose, intention, and goal when it held no foundation and no standards to be grounded. Without grounded foundations, nor standards, a cause, an ideal, or even a revolution can veer off from its origin. To that end, such an origin can be forgotten, or even given a mote of deliberation for intended displacement. Whatever other ways in which something that began as a thought can be led astray from its original design, purpose, or origin, what it next becomes can be a mere “anything”.

If all things, to a Nihilistic mindset, can be rendered being meaningless, in due time, that identifies as a belief that deception will rule all truths over. Although, that can be a case for argument’s sake, should an individual person ever gain an ability to, at will, induce amnesia to forget their origin. Without such an ability, one’s origin and history are believed to be false by that individual, and it becomes deception to take the place of that same individual’s future through their belief to be “anything” or “anyone”.

To memories, being what make a person or all persons, nothing can be meaningless when origins are still known. To forget one’s origin, believing to a current era in their life that their past had not built them, reveals a realization that themselves, faced as a social construct, must be reborn under a new identity. However, that remains as deception, for without recognition of one’s past as something to build oneself, there has been recognition of evident human errors even up a level of evil, as being justified for that purpose of being forgotten. Why else would a person want to reidentify themselves, while they might believe their past can be forgotten, their origin smothered over, and now believe in themselves as a product of “anything”?

A deception takes to itself in a denial upon specifics. To specifics, given light upon specific moments, objects called mementos, or locations where someone might have felt comfort or despair, those are traces of a past tied to meaning. Nothing among that should confuse oneself, for in their meaningfulness, a person has been given clarity. All confusion stems to a future, not history. A deliberately erased or forgotten origin, up to when an individual can believe themselves as “anything” for their future, comes with admittance that their past efforts and experiences were indeed a nothingness, a meaninglessness, and are deserving of such forgetfulness. What this also means is that deception will be their way to identify themselves, without necessary conformity to their past. They have admitted that all previously held specifics from a clear history cannot be viewed as spaces of education, nor as lessons to be learned, brought out from imperfections and errors correctly identified as such.

We might argue that a person holds freedom, in regard to their future. Though, to an individual’s past, there cannot be a freedom embedded in a forgetfulness, through a notion that in self-expression one can be “anything” and even “all things”. A person remains a slave to their past, and always faces a blur being their future. That history can only be that one strict facet of clarity. To an individual’s future, clarity comes in shaping it with lessons learned and education received from their past. Though, to this now-repeated theme called “anything” or merely with that word “any”, deception reveals itself in what a person cannot trust when, to their past, there is now that blur. An unknown and their unknown origin, as it has also been repeated, while with an individual’s deliberate intention to forget their past, believe it as not what defines them, their clinging to deception becomes apparent through their admittance of that. As in, to see their past as a blur, as meant to be forgotten, that comes into a reveal of them admitting that they deceive themselves in believing that their origin remains unknown.

Philosophy – “When Race Doesn’t Matter” – 12/28/2022

“To think on a close friend for their race, or other surface-level detail, is to spit on your memories of them for what goes beneath that.”
– Modern Romanticism

At the point of knowing an individual for there to be a stable structure of trust, a person no longer needs to see them as a stranger. There has been bloomed a friendship, strengthened through trust, only possible because of the vulnerability of finding oneself comfortable enough to confess personal details that wouldn’t otherwise be told to anyone else. Those who wouldn’t be told such personal details are more of a stranger than this befriended individual who is trusted more.

At the point of being a friend, outside of perceiving that befriended individual as a stranger, there is no need to consider a surface-level detail as race. To courage, one has found themselves capable of stepping inside that individual’s life. What purpose was there to being ignorant of them, from the surface for which we could only see them as a stranger? There was no point, same as we cannot look back upon first meeting them to comprehend “why” or “how” we became their friend. There is no limitation to be needed in terms of an explanation, since ignorance, when we once considered them a stranger, was its own limitation. Beneath all surface-level details, there is infinity. There are an infinite number of possibilities, opportunities, and paths to get to know an individual even better. There is a universe that extends beyond the blue sky for two individuals to grow their friendship together.

Why would race matter, when we can get to know someone? Upon knowing them, we no longer refer to them through their race. Instead, we refer to them with details only we know. We can use their name, and if we trust another person enough for a more in-depth detail, we can share that knowledge as well.

If race matters, we are admitting that ignorance, not knowledge, matters. At the same time, we are admitting that fear, not courage, matters. None of these things matter, for as ignorance is aligned with fear, there is never a legitimate reason to remain ignorant or in fear. For people with phobias of spiders, blood, or of heights, it is the same thing. Exposure, for the purpose of conquering such fears, is also with the purpose of stepping outside the bounds of ignorance and avoidance, in order to see the truth. To see the truth, not the facts, since one has, through trust, been able to form a connection out of what is similar, not merely different as strangers may interpret each other. It is not the facts, for facts do not change, though people do. It is truth, because truth, unlike facts, are moldable, as are people. Through gaining their trust, we are trusted with details they would not share to anyone else. As in, they have grown to be comfortable with us, instead of being comfortable with being ignorant and avoidant.

Conquering one’s fear, finding out what is true and also similar to oneself, is the same as recognizing that oneself always has the possibility of being someone else’s fear. As someone else can be a stranger to us, we are a stranger to other people as well. Should betrayal incur, because there is no longer a perception of mutual sameness due to change, a person can become unrecognizable and be no different than something to fear. That fear is now upon being afraid of a repeat of that event of betrayal. However, that fear of being betrayed cannot turn that individual back towards the comfort of ignorance and avoidance.

With the idea of befriending someone else, we have been able to open a book, instead of believing we can know anything by its cover. If we still say that race matters, then we are admitting that a book cover, not its details within its pages, holds importance. A book cover will relate to race. That book’s pages in its details and stories will relate to the person, themselves. Are we ever willing to believe that our own stories aren’t terrifying enough to be labelled as a genre, like horror? It is to mean that we might believe, through some inward conceit, that we are incapable of becoming someone else’s fear. Should anyone be judgmental enough, upon a singular book, to steer clear of it only because of what’s illustrated on the front cover? If it’s romance, though romance doesn’t matter to one person, is romance all it is? In the same sense, if it’s a different race of an individual, while we are still believing that race matters, is that race any kind of representation of that person? We should not think so, when we have yet to compare that person’s story to our own to see similarities, enough for a connection or a friendship.

Quote – “The Similarities of Love & Death” – 12/18/2022

“If we can say that love must be deserved, then we ought to also believe that death can be something deserved upon another. Controlling those uncontrollable, inevitable gifts or punishments upon another, for who can believe, with legitimate credibility upon their words, that this gamble of love or death can be ruled as a designated certainty of a specific time? What life knows when it will arrive? To love or death, what life or what person can control a sheer gamble? In believing that neither love nor death are certainties, though ignorant of its time of arrival, we must believe that we are prepared to admit that we can live without fear of decay. Being vulnerable is the essence of all lives that are fearful of coming death or even coming love.”
– Modern Romanticism

Philosophy – “Why Psychology is Infinitely More Valuable than Sociology” – 11/27/2022

“We, as a species, only got as far with curing bodily ailments, providing food for the homeless, creating a higher degree of welfare for those with their numbered disabilities as scratching the surface. For isn’t that what a physical fault relates to, the body? Beneath the pained, starving, or paralyzed flesh, a human being is an entity most hidden.”
– Modern Romanticism

A plethora of issues that a human might face can be extended beyond the boundaries of their flesh, residing within themselves, not of the organs, muscles, nor their bones; for this metaphor compares to their mind. A person’s mind, misunderstood and often misjudged, remains complex to the sociological individual who will tackle all physical-related, existent issues. In comprehending a physical fault, we tell it as an existing one. Though, to the metaphysical or psychological problem, we can find ourselves better off to admit it does not exist. Can we find it necessary to change the term “cancer” to something other than cancer? Though, we’ll find it necessary to change the term shell shock several times to the point of keeping it as PTSD. We’ll say it is necessary to denounce the term “dork” or “retard” for a replacement term, since these examples have been misunderstood and also misjudged. With cancer, we comprehend its deadliness because of its blatant visibility. All can comprehend the sociological extent of it, because cancer does not directly target the psychology of those afflicted by it. There is no need to change the term “cancer” to something other than cancer.

Non-physical, psychological issues are misunderstood because they are deemed often as invisible. If psychology can be understood as more valuable than sociology, it is because when a world gets structured through the train of progress to seek solutions for the physical, bodily issues, it begins to neglect the more difficult, complex faults of the mind. An advocating group can gather together for a meeting on a problem that pertains directly to society. To their mission’s statement, it will be clear. However, if another group advocates on a fault pertaining not to society, though to psychology, their statement will be unclear merely because that group will be unclear of themselves of what solutions are available.

Whether it is the separation of church from state that sent away into history’s textbooks the horrifying methods for capital punishment, or it is the debate between mental illness and firearms access, comprehending psychology as more valuable than sociology is simply an admittance of what will receive negligence whenever a world has been formed to tackle issues it can better understand. The separation of church from state is no different than the debate between those who believe the individual is faulted for the gun or those who believe that the gun must be restricted of its ease of access. This lack of difference comes from the understandable difference between mind and body, or the difference between psychology and sociology. We can all deem progress as relevant when it tackles faults pertaining to social aspects and elements. Though, negligence of psychology and faults of the mind will be paramount when we forget what originated all physical faults to begin with. The mind does control the body. The voice controls the audience. The singular person before a podium conquers and directs the herd before them. There is worship and reverence, though sociology is simply the aftermath of psychology. Sociology would not be possible without psychology, just as an issue with mentally ill individuals being a sociological problem among police forces would not be existent without the emptying of mental asylums.

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 the Truth Hurts” – Written: 10/17/2022

“A smile is a stone, made for fire. Beneath that hardened mask is a puddle, where our sorrows were held down to be drowned. We held down our tragedies beneath a weight, a stone, our false smiles, though we could not help it when the fires grew to reach others and burn them away. We lied. We told the wrong story. We said to others that we were doing well. They knew better. We did not. They turned away. One day in the future, we will not.”
– Modern Romanticism

The truth hurts. A common saying. But why?

It should be because we understand something about ourselves, though our denial is more willing to defy that comprehension. Our comprehension says that our pain is real. With that vivid realness, we hide it beneath a veil. We do not want to look at it, because its images are too real. We would rather live, showing to ourselves in a mirror, or to others as we connect, a mirage that isn’t who we are.

How does that bode to people who have just met us? They see that mirage, and they see a different person that people, who have always known us, do not see. Have we changed, or are we still the same person? Indeed, we are the same person, because we cannot see what we have buried. An attempt to move on without resolving a traumatic experience, for instance, will result in future connections not seeing what past connections have known. About ourselves. About whom we were, before we sought to hide everything, even those past connections, because it all reminded us of what we do not want to remember.

The truth hurts because we cannot let something that is ourselves go. We cannot let go of something, simply because we have buried it. If a good friend should tell us something about ourselves, then despite its accuracy, are we in the right to say those words were hurtful if they spoke of something we already knew? We are right to make that interpretation, because the only reason that perception of us was hurtful was indeed because we already knew what they know. We understood it, for that’s why it was hurtful. We understood it, and if we are willing to retort against our close friend of their hurtful words, we are now displaying them as a stranger. In doing that, we are hurting our close friend, to say they are ignorant, and that all memories that have developed this bond of friendship are meaningless.

Memories are not meaningless. We are meant to be sure of what we trusted. Though, people with traumatic memories do not want to remember what they cannot believe had happened. In a person saying the words, “I cannot believe that has happened,” they are admitting that they do not want to believe it. In that sense, it is denial being expressed. Though, in the process of grief or of an experience this shocking, from denial to acceptance, a person must walk these stages to find peace for themselves. From successfully doing this, they have placed confidence in what they have experienced, while no longer doubting themselves on what is a truth and a tragedy that can no longer be avoided nor denied. In that same sense, to deny a close friend’s words is no different than denying what everyone else, besides the denier, knows has happened. At the same time, that denier not only denies, though has distorted their thinking to the point of others knowing more of the occurrence than they. No matter the angle, denial is the restriction upon acceptance of something that another person can understand with greater clarity than that denier.

If truth is hurtful, we might deny it for as long as possible, though not forever. If we choose to deny it forever, we lose ourselves in forgetting ourselves out from whatever memories we ever harbored of ourselves. In this, we become something that isn’t ourselves, making it an absolute that other people will know us better than we comprehend ourselves. People are the truths that they make themselves to be. Forgetting how to read our own pages makes us illiterate to them. In being illiterate to our histories, another person will have to read them for us. A person denying their own history will cause them to be incapable of being part of their own future.

Philosophy – “The Meaning Behind the Fall of Man” – 9/25/2022

“Feminism has inadvertently implied that men will be to blame for this world’s crisis, in its definition of what it means to fall. To die. To be in love. In essence, to protect and to take the blame for struggle.”
– Modern Romanticism

What does it mean for a man to love? What does it mean when a feminist woman will point out men as the cause to this world’s struggles and crises? Why, it must mean that men are still out to protect a woman, even under philosophies imposed by feminism. To fall. To take the blame. To perhaps, even by a man’s own words (and actions), state and prove that his female partner is not to blame, never allowed hurt, and never to receive the burn of implication. It must be, that if it has been deemed as a sexist view to women that she is “weak”, feminism has attempted to thwart this “societal mindset” to counteract it simply with “who to blame”. If men are to blame, then men are still sexist, are they not? Or nature is simply upholding its fundamentals, by proving that feminism has not accomplished anything, other than paint a different color onto a merely perceived issue.

Men cannot be inherently sexist, if even feminism is admitting that men should protect a “weak” woman, because he is to blame, not her. In that case, sexism does not exist, though ignorance does. Feminism would be the source of ignorance, in this, when it misunderstands its own philosophies. In feminism’s attempt to thwart sexism, it has reinforced it. It has reinforced a non-existent notion, being sexism, that in its non-existence, has no meaning among this blatant contradiction. A contradiction that, again, states a man must be held responsible for this world’s issues, though the contradiction lies upon not recognizing that whatever issues of “sexism” a man has, he simply acts according to his nature. And women act according to their nature, though feminism’s philosophies are ignorant of what nature, itself, has structured men and women to be. Men protect women, for this is what feminism, itself, believes. Though, this might be its own reason for becoming increasingly radical. Its increased radicalism has resulted from fighting against an incurable “issue”. For what mad scientist doesn’t become maddened, if not because of needing to resort to more drastic measures because all other methods have proven ineffective?

Men fall for women. Whether to die for her, or to be in love with her, he will fall. He will even fall, under her deception, when it is feminism that has revealed its own ignorance for its own philosophies. Men fall, because they are fated to. Men fall, because they cannot fall, by themselves, without losing purpose and dying in vain. Men go to war, because they want to die. Men love women, because they want to see how long they can last. A man proves his strength without understanding it, while a woman will blame a strong man because deception is a trait of ignorance. Even when falling, a strong man found purpose in doing so. Even though painful, a man protects. Even when blamed, a man protects. A man is strong, because he realizes he is cursed to be.

Philosophy – “Why Love does not Count as an Emotion” – 9/2/2022

“To love, as an essence one might state can be shared, it remains not mutual for investment’s sake. We give, though with this quantity of ourselves we hand over, insanity creeps into that one individual who gave too much of themselves. Love, not an emotion, presents its essence as our own perspective. To investment, sharing ourselves will risk a loss of ourselves.”
– Modern Romanticism

A perspective remains a place, individualized. It remains a realm we cannot understand, to another’s own, in completion. Absolute understanding of another’s perspective remains impossible. To how much we have understood, out of an estimated percentage, remains impossible. Have we comprehended another to 20% or 50%? We’ll not know. Much remains hidden, within another, while that other person refuses to invest some piece of information that becomes a gamble. For in investment, a risk places itself as a coin on a table, turned either on heads or tails to be what might be lost or what might be retained.

A person loves, because they can. One person risks themselves in love, because it can be done. Same as a person who teeters on edges of cliffs, enveloping their life in danger. A risk happens, because it does. Life does not grow, without loss. Though, what cannot be lost, in absolution, are what we are, when we do not invest enough to keep losing. An addiction, as this, remains no different than any other, when we are high on both pain and pleasure, unable to differentiate either side. Though, if we were to lose ourselves in another, through love, we’ll stray from what we know of ourselves. If love brings a pairing into insanity, it had been because of loss. It had been because of what love stays as, as a perspective to an individual that comes often attempted to be shared. At that share, such investment can become a loss, causing us to lose ourselves. If love cannot be totally shared of itself, as a perspective, such means that a person cannot be able to share enough of themselves to lose themselves, entirely. Hope remains for that person, in their loss, to find themselves, again.

Not being an emotion keeps love everywhere else, except for “in the moment”. Emotions, however, are felt “in the moment”. Love identifies to be those memories that keep a person held back in their loss, while also being that person’s future hopes of what might continue to be lived. A life, lived, with knowledge of oneself that makes love a place of one’s human perspective. One’s angle, unable to be shared for forced understanding without rise of human conflict. For human conflict always becomes bred upon enforcing understanding to a perspective, as such remains an impossibility. Losing ourselves in another will force aside our perspective, that upon this attempt to persuade another to understand, will cause this desperate person to misunderstand themselves.

We are deemed as heartless when we attempt to comprehend another, without patience for that moment when emotions are decided upon to be shared. Emotions can be shared, though love cannot when its gift remains an investment that, when considered to be too much, bring that sharer closer to insanity. Insanity results in those who gave enough of themselves to forget themselves. Remembering a loss will be no different than a person attempting to recall what they forgot. For they cannot, if that other person has become their identity.

Philosophy – “Why Society is not to Blame, for your Errors” – 8/22/2022

“One who blames their individualist faults as having collective origins has forgotten that a problem will be fixed, through self-admittance. When one admits that their faults have been theirs, one can be aided through available resources. Although, admitting that these issues originate from one’s surroundings, instead of oneself, will mean that one no longer possesses an issue to be fixed. One has admitted, through this latter scenario, that this world must be repaired, while we can forget ourselves and others who have issues for a supposed fixed world to solve.”
– Modern Romanticism

A perfect world must be realized as even less realistic than a perfect individual. When we blame our surroundings, this world, this means we have not admitted that our faults are our own. To identify an issue will be first through admittance. Next, we take to resources. However, to skip over that stage of admittance will be for someone to venture to resources, though without such admittance for oneself, upon their issues, all resources will be wasted without comprehension for their proper application. Such means that if one blames all institutions for their inadequate or dysfunctional resources, one has blamed what gets wasted of this world before those who enter rehabilitation centers to waste their own time out of that misguided admittance for a fault.

If one blames their surroundings, before themselves, this way for admittance refers to their world as needing to care about such faults of individuals, while that individual must not care for their personal faults. Though, if a purpose to an institution will be to aid troubled individuals, what becomes of this purpose when an individual cannot be aided due to no focus of themselves upon themselves? With a world to focus on a troubled individual, there comes negligence to an individual upon themselves. We cannot blame dysfunctional institutions, when this purpose to aid troubled individuals becomes voided when believing that such institutions must be fixed, before those troubled individuals. This has been due to those troubled individuals lacking a requirement of care, to themselves, that no institution can offer, through a resource. As in, no resource exists that can teach a person to care for their own faults or to admit that their faults are their own. However, it has been an ease for an individual to instead blame their surroundings, before themselves.

If individuals will be neglected, while institutions must be saved, all have lost this understanding upon what holds fault. An individual cannot be taught to admit that their faults are because of themselves, or because of their own actions or inactions. Rather, an individual can be taught that these institutions are at fault, when it remains easier to blame such, over oneself.

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.