Philosophy – “Why Progress is Limited” – 8/2/2021

“How can humanity achieve its feats if under constant pressure due to such limitations as time, as illness, as poverty? We are unable to build, if all we’re content with is destruction. If we are left with dissection, we learn, and yet, we are left with useless knowledge. We cannot bind, if all we do is break. Nor can we, if we mean to break, find our wisdom when things are left shattered.”

– Modern Romanticism

Today’s focus on “difference” and “diversity” is the sign that progress is reaching its limit.

Progress is only ever achievable through a recognition of similarities. When things work, we can break limits. Though, when people compete in their differences, able to be stagnantly proud to them, then there is no progress. There is the mere appearance that has no function for itself.

If science gathers data and knowledge, then such findings prove to be useless without a place for their application. It is to say that without a societal focus on similarities, more knowledge becomes increasingly insufficient. Dissatisfaction becomes the focus to those obsessed with difference, since their desire for greater choice comes at the cost for what functions. If what is meant to function cannot, then it was because more had been broken, than what had been mended.

Continue reading Philosophy – “Why Progress is Limited” – 8/2/2021

Philosophy – “Of Pride and Egotism” – 6/5/2021

“An excuse can be set for the matter in which one feels prideful, when one has committed no action for the feeling of it. It would be the foulest of sensations to boast, especially within earshot of those aided, of the noble actions one has taken in the name of self-sacrifice.”

Modern Romanticism

For nobility, one does not take to the gain for the self. For the occurrence of self-sacrifice, one knows its difference from loss. One places themselves, through humility, at the level of those who have lost, to then raise them at the cost of the self. It is to sacrifice, where a person does not lose out of the sensation of grief. One sacrifices, because it was no choice to do so. One does this, because another needed the material substance more than the self.

It is the prideful individual who believes themselves capable of all. It is them who cannot fathom the idea that they cannot be indestructible. For it requires the certain necessity of dropping one’s own pride, to the notion that they require aid. That is individualism, in the finest sense of the word.

Individualism is the swallowing of pride, for the greater sensation to another’s care that one would be relieved by. Though, to prideful sorts, they are not so much to believe they are incapable.

Then, what is a human? Are we not imperfect, enough for the comprehension of it? We are, because to our mistakes, and then in our admittance that we have caused one, is to how we both mature through life’s education of pain. Pain is thus tolerated for the sake of individualist education. Then, it is to the prideful person who must believe they should remain ignorant, never to admit they were wrong of a decision.

How does a person learn, if not willing to sacrifice what was not needed? How does a person know what they need, versus what is a convenience? Humility is the place of self-sacrifice. Whereas, it is pride that will keep to the self, in the notion that one does not deserve the criticism that would deconstruct.

One should be prideful for accomplishment, for this compares to action. Whereas, one should be humble for who one is, in the knowledge that an action can become an excuse to build one’s own ego. When ego builds, a person does not sacrifice. They keep, because they are always afraid to lose.

Paupers are to this regard, as always meaning to keep what is left when they have lost enough. It should then be fathomed of those deemed as victimized for the encouragement of a prideful mindset, that such sorts will never know what it means to learn. Their pride, along with their refusal to admit to their wrongs, cultivates the perpetual state of ignorance even among the chaos in what they feel.

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 – “The Idiocy Behind Self-Love” – 9/13/2020

“One should name themselves as weak, and forever such, when they dislike the idea of attaching themselves to a non-material thing, being a person. For if they were to lose that person, it could not be seen as expendable. It would be seen as forever lost. True strength is only ever bred when one can rebuild from non-material things being lost.”

– Modern Romanticism

One realizes the extent of pain, once their heart has been shattered. One, as a generous sort, might say that their act of trust upon people, going into their act of generosity upon people, was taken for granted. Could it not be that these supposedly generous sorts took for granted what they allowed in their own lives? As in, the person who easily trusts took for granted all those who entered their lives, in treating them as expendables? One can only take something for granted, when what exits their own lives, is an expendable, and cannot be something the same as them.

When one loves themselves, one will be stagnant, in the belief that should one lose something never to be seen as an expendable, it was of no real consequence. That stagnancy amounts to perpetual weakness. For weakness can only be imagined of the person who could not endeavor to love someone else, more than themselves. If they did love someone else, more than themselves, they’d comprehend what it means to lose something that wasn’t a mere inconvenience in their life.

Self-love is only ever the idea of maintaining a materialistic mindset, when they cannot differ the material from the non-material. For of the non-material, there is love being given to those who are people of flesh and blood. How selfish can a person be, to love only themselves, always more than someone else, because all others cannot be attached, non-materially? Selfishness has to be defined only as attaching oneself to material things, and never to the non-material things that would be protected.

To love another person, more than yourself, allows one to understand the meaning of loss, were they to lose that person. More importantly, they’d understand the meanings of words like “dishonor” and “disgrace”. For loss can only ever be felt, when that non-material someone was loved more than the person who is loving. A loving person must love someone else, more than themselves, or it is not love. Love is sacrifice. Love is honor.

To believe one is strong, through loving themselves, makes them perpetually weak, because they are stagnant in materialism. One can imagine this as the morbidly obese person whose literal stagnancy has made them unwilling to give material and expendable sustenance to those who are starving. For if they did, they’d have fasted, and understand the meaning of sacrifice, not loss.

For to sacrifice, is not the same as loss. We lose, when we lose what we love, being something always non-material. We sacrifice, when we sacrifice what we cannot love, being something always material.

Philosophy – “Identity Politics, the same as Monarchal Bloodlines” – 9/12/2020

“Written in the ways of purism, is the idea that one blood is inferior, or lacking in quality, over another. To base politics around race, around gender, around creed, is to recede to the aristocracy mentality, though swapped. It is to say that impurity is purity. Perhaps it is that we are all the same, though not in the way everyone wants.”

– Modern Romanticism

Who is pure, in this world of worlds? Who can say whether one person has more in-depth understanding to their “self-discovery”, over another? Who is purer, to another, whose bloodline, whether crossed or stagnant, is only ever different?

It can continually return to the idea that a person, whose bloodline is only different, can be made brand new. Of a bloodline, brand new, it is the same as a bloodline, pure. It is the same as to see something more divisive than any aristocrat, who had power in the past, could make for competition’s sake. For do these people with their “identity” not relate to very obscure bloodlines, so alien from the common man?

All a person knows, so well of themselves, is that they can bleed, just like anyone else.

“Identity politics” is, therefore, an exact relation to aristocracy, in terms of the curiosity for the potency of blood. We can comprehend our ancestry, through a simple “Google search”. Whereas, in the past, we knew it by whoever had sexual intercourse with a woman. We can dig so deep in the past, to discover our identity’s “potential”, and then, become proud of who we are. For to be proud of who we are, is no different than any tyrant who would want to appear good, rather than do good.

The love of blood, is the love of making a statement. And, when do we become the vampires, who like Elizabeth Bathory, drenched herself in a virgin’s own? We do so, by accumulating newness. We make new bloodlines, discovering percentages of ourselves in our supposed “ancestry”. Again, in the pride of who we are, we forget to be proud for what we can do. That makes us ruling tyrants, that without the offered shame for this identity, we can conceal guilt.

People can be wounded, not of guilt, though for pride. Though, whenever will we give in, to a guilt that tells us we have bled others, for the sake of keeping what we most know of ourselves? We have bled other people’s pride, not ever giving in to this guilt we know we feel. Because, for how sour an aristocratic person’s expression can be, we overlook our guilt for how much we bleed. We put to death, another person and their supposed guilt, whether at the stake or at the hanging. To burn, or to choke, is the only punishment a person with a supposed sin, can receive.

It is to those that know we all bleed, that make those who are so vain for their identity, released of their head from their shoulders. Yet, they’ll still run around without intelligence, without recognition, and without identity. Because, as they believe in blood, the rest believes in sameness. The common man believes in same blood, same identity.

Consume the offered shame. Feel your inner guilt. Punish yourself.

Quote – “The Objective Idiocy in Making Statements” – 9/6/2020

“Has no one ever considered that the idea of making a statement relates more to ‘looking good’, over ‘being good’? Has anyone ever considered that to cause destruction relates more to ‘looking good’, over ‘being good’? This is due to that the raising of something requires action, while the destruction of something requires the arrogance of it. Does a person, when they desire to lift another in its selfless act, ever do this for the boast, the ego, or for vanity?

Selfishness, in making statements, only ever relates to appearances, and not ever the raising of something for development’s sake.”

– Modern Romanticism

Quote – “Why not Believe Prejudice as a Fear?” – 8/27/2020

“When prejudice is believed to never be a fear, it becomes a one-sided standpoint on who can possibly take a form of it. When prejudice is believed to be a fear, equality is soon promoted in the belief that all sides, when prejudiced, feel the same thing. For when emotion can be realized, in terms of sameness, there is a unison involved where comprehension becomes commonplace.

Whether in love, or undergoing a tantrum of fear, there is comprehension. As an example of a solider to see another of his kind, there is the same expression in either’s eyes.”

– Modern Romanticism

Philosophy – “Why Self-Love is an Oxymoron” – 8/18/2020

“Were the human to be adjusted to their own darkness, they’d indeed begin to love what they see. What they see, being themselves, never illuminated in a reflection. They are the beast who loves themselves, always aching, always famished. They chew upon their own flesh, turn themselves inside-out, and demand to be called ‘beautiful’. Yet, this demand comes as words to bounce off walls. For no one will love this monster.”

– Modern Romanticism

How does a person ever come to love themselves, if not in the most terrible of manners? To become the Narcissist, the beast who only ever admires their own hideous reflection, is indeed the person who learns to love themselves, on their own.

The person who is taught to love themselves, by another, is the same as that aiding person shunning the former away. They are saying the words, “You are too bothersome to help. Do it on your own.”

How does a person ever come to love themselves, on their own, if not to be forced to figure out their life’s meaning, in that loneliness? How often does such a lonely figure attempt or contemplate suicide, because all they yearn for is a helping hand? For it is never the abuse of a person’s mind, though the absence of love, that makes up a person’s worst torment.

No woman is ever tormented by the abuse of domestic violence, so much as they are tortured by the absence of genuine love, in such a heated relationship. A person is always ruined by what is lacking, not by what is present.

If “self-love” pertains to the human encouraged to do something, on their own, it relates to such sheer abandonment, by the world. A guard is raised against the world, in the name of distrust. A guard, a shield, painted with the image of a raised hand, by the color of tears. Darkness. A person has cloaked themselves in darkness. Why? Because, they have accepted themselves to be the lonely little speck whom no one appreciates.

How often does a person help another out, only to be mistreated for that? How often, due to that experience, does a person say about that, “I am through with helping others, and never having anything in return”? How often is such naivety in control of a person’s mind, enough for them to soon believe they can conquer all the terrain in the world, on their own? They will not know how to do that, hence them asking others for advice.

The person who asks another for advice pertaining to “self-love” proves this term as an oxymoron, simply by doing so. How is it ever “self-love” to ask the world on how to engage in such a feat? One is trusting another for their wisdom. Meaning, they are, once more, lowering their guard, applying weakness and vulnerability to themselves, and making themselves known. They are releasing themselves from that darkness, and once more, keeping that void from engulfing them.

For the person who is deciding on how to love themselves, truly on their own, can be no more than the Narcissist who rejects everyone. Anyone who comes into the Narcissist’s own life, will be manipulated and toyed with, in the name of their selfish resolve.

Quote – “Why to Never be Proud for Identity” – Pt. 2 – 8/17/2020

“Proof must be within action. A person is always recognized for their deeds, for however noble and direct, and therefore not seen any longer of appearance. We love, we trust, the hero for their actions, when their appearances can be ignored. Though, should the appearance be the heroism, it is deception we believe to empower us.”

– Modern Romanticism

Quote – “Why Identity Pride is Pointless” – 7/5/2020

“There is a statement: to be proud for what you can do, and to be humble for who you are. Though, what if this was reversed? What if people were proud for who they are, and they were humble about what they can do? Does this not feed into negligence for actions, and then also a continuous demand for ‘acceptance’ in the name of that identity?

Negligence will be of the person too siphoned into their pride for who they are, because in their humility for what they can do, they are lazy.

How many dictators and how many other tyrants of the past, were more humble for what they can do, more lazy and more neglecting of others, to be proud of who they were?”

– Anonymous