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 – “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.

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

Quote – “The Difference Between a Politician and a Leader” – 8/4/2022

“A politician knows their books. To be a politician, one must be expected to hold experience. Experience with what? Well, all experience amounts to one thing only: deceptive handiwork. While we learn, we wish to learn more. A craving for something like knowledge becomes a trait for masochism, when satisfaction remains unreachable. Although, for leadership, a thing like experience or knowledge becomes defined as needless. If popularity held a special requirement for its growth, no leader could influence their people upon a singular word. Leadership requires heart, being something that no book can teach. A heart that inspired another remains divided from knowledge, stemming from brains. Knowledge cannot inspire. Instead, knowledge deprives a person from an aspect called fulfillment. All knowledge goes to waste without a heart that will guide resources to correct designations.”

– Modern Romanticism

Political Quote – “A Backwards-Styled Thinking on Minority Rights” – 6/1/2022

“Whoever claims to be in support of minority rights must also be in support of individual rights. Any greater-in-number minority supported, over an individual, becomes a support of a majority over a minority. If one cannot support an individual right, such as a right to bear arms, one can be disqualified of their credibility to support minorities. If it becomes an incapability for a supporter of minorities to support the smallest form of a minority, being an individual, they have lost all merit to their status.”

– Modern Romanticism

Philosophy – “A Problem with Tolerance” – 5/24/2022

“To compel love does not result in love. Love cannot be forced, unless hypocrisy happens to be one’s motto. When one enforces love, love cannot come naturally. When love forces itself, it becomes rape, or it becomes what one cannot tolerate.”

– Modern Romanticism

Human nature dictates that a person must fall in love or form a human connection, on accident. That accident had been a result of being unaware of where a connection will go. Soon as information becomes flooded into a receiver’s mind, there will be more doors to open for that receiver to give their information over, under a banner of trust.

On a dating website, where deliberation intends for love to happen with purpose, there can be emotional attachments formed. However, accident had been that connection’s initial formation, due to that same ingredient of trust for all of a giver’s information. Information becomes given to a person who has also been trusted enough to present their care for it. Without their exploitation of said information, further trust can be enhanced, and thus deepen this connection.

Tolerance depicts itself as an enforcement of it. However, its way for being hypocritical resides in not being aware of one specific fact. That fact comes in an idea that no human can absolve themselves of preference. As preference remains opposite of prejudice, a person who enforces tolerance will be unaware of their preferences and their prejudices. Such comes with an unawareness of both human traits describing like and dislike. As a person tolerates, so too can they be intolerant of another’s presence. To believe we can be tolerant of all means an ordinary human being can be capable of renouncing their innate characteristics of preferring against a sight of them being prejudiced. As all humans hold appetite, their hunger for something preferred happens to be outside of their desire to be apart from where they express dislike or prejudice.

To enforce tolerance will be no different than enforcing someone to like another thing. In that, a rapist’s mentality exists. A rapist will force someone to submit to liking their acts, as within a law’s understanding of rape, even arousal does not mean consent.

If rape, of its definition, can be compared to theft, one can believe that compelling love will refer not to love, though to unconditional and unbarred trust. To trust, that of itself can only be unconditional if one happens to be being manipulated. Stealing information, therefore, falls under this definition of unconditional trust or to compel love. As love cannot be compelled, it will refer to trust. Forcing another to trust them can be no different than a victim to a rapist who hopes for no greater extent of harm to come to them, after this forceful act concludes itself.

To steal information means to take such on an enforcement of tolerance to what cannot be enforced, though happens to be believed as possible. Tolerating theft will remain of its own understanding under a tyrannical policy similar to Bolsheviks who took property from those who were wealthy to allow it for those who were poor. Tolerance for those who are poor of their own information or who have nothing to steal from means that those who hold or have success are truer victims to a scenario of this hypocrisy. One cannot be tolerant for those who are claimed, from people who enforce it, to be victims without not comprehending that tolerance can only be a mere compelling of desire and lust, not love, upon those who have material possessions.

Philosophy – “Why Collectives are often Victimized” – 5/16/2022

“Up to a collective, their victimization resonates through an inferiority complex. Contrasted from that, an individual remains superior. An individual can dominate a collective, to name simply that group as inferior, when an individual has not been regarded first. Capability to an individual can only be through them, though when they regard themselves first as among a collective or group, their perspective of inferiority to themselves become evident.”

– Modern Romanticism

While knowing an individual, with this operative word being “knowing”, their collection of group-thought can come secondary. Turning oneself into a singular understanding for where one belongs will disregard oneself, as oneself. This has been because all examples of regarding a collective before an individual will evaluate all within that group as never superior to a leader who dominates them. Regarding a group before that group’s individuals will render them as inferior to leadership, subjecting all within this collection to a lack of perception to who leads them whether through respect or tyranny.

In our knowledge that respect must be given, never earned, makes it ideal for a group to not be involved with acceptance, though tolerance. If respect shows itself as a gift, respect becomes a later improvement of it upon an individual, within a group, to their capabilities. Knowing an ability of an individual will mean to regard them, before their collective, group, or movement in where they find belonging. Defining acceptance cannot be compared to tolerance, for as tolerance remains something earned if not brought on to a collection or group, acceptance defines itself as loving. Loving an individual, if not a group, will be a reveal to special understanding of them, far outside of where they once sheltered themselves in a state of belonging.

Belonging has always been an ideal, to an individual. When that individual discovers belonging in a collective, their acceptance among it cannot be to that aforementioned definition of tolerance. Though a collective will want for tolerance from their surrounding world of other groups. However, if an individual, with that group or among any group, separates themselves from it, there can be acceptance from other individuals. No tolerance can come from individual to individual, though remains as a desire from group to group.

When a group can believe itself victimized from lacking tolerance, there can be understood from this a belief of inferiority to that entire collective. This means for a person to regard themselves first as among their own accepting collective than as an individual with knowledge of their own abilities. This becomes an inferiority complex when there can be no such thing as a capable collective. Regarding a collective before an individual shows itself no different than tyrant’s understanding to a slave as capable, though still a slave and thus no better than an expendable.

As a set of parents with multiple children must regard this group of youths as possessing their own individual characteristics, instead of simply a group of children, this example shows contrast between a tyrant and a leader of respect. A collective, given respect, has been done in a mere second of its deliverance due to such not requiring a prior ingredient of it without a thought of acceptance over tolerance. Among a collective, individualism must be indeed regarded first, though without knowing categories of different abilities, there cannot be a notion of ability. Along with comprehending individualism before collectivism, for our sake of seeing a person as not merely an expendable, there must also be a placement of automatic respect from leader to collection. This instant awareness from leader to collection remains existent, so that no special attention can be given to a separated individual without further respect upon their improved abilities. With such enhancement through practice, this remaining danger to accept from leader to individual stays when separation cannot be to an extent of granting what has not been deserved.

Philosophy – “Why Systems (sometimes) do not Require Change (to help people)” – 5/16/2022

“If we care to solve, we will not need as many resources. In this absence of care, resources become our supplement. We replace a heart, meant to be there within us, with material, ephemeral resources. All meant for accessibility to us cannot be always in this manner for a resource. As there can be nothing more accessible than an individual’s knowledge of self, a resource will only extend as far as to keep ourselves distracted.”

– Modern Romanticism

If it has been true, that a person who displays their habits of addiction will gain more of a likelihood for homelessness, a similar comprehension can be that one with continued replacements of material resources will show more of a likelihood for losing their heart, or themselves, among what now reveals itself as least accessible. Accessible, through what fault? Fault of that addict’s self. Desiring a resource, in place or to replace a heart, or knowledge of oneself, can be no different than wanting to sustain one’s addiction to be kept outside of one’s home.

If a system must change for this type of individual’s help, comprehension to these sorts becomes void. That remains always due to comprehending a person requiring an amount of knowing their capability. However, to view a person a victim will be to view them as incapable. That will make an incapable individual not be at all an individual, though as an incapable collective.

There can be no such thing as an incapable individual. Incapable collectives, however, exist due to not needing to be aware of individuals, within that collective, with their own separate abilities. For when Jews, during that era of WWII, were seen by Germany as still capable to take to their skills of tailor work inside of concentration camps, they were still considered Jews with no true purpose for a life.

Knowing an individual’s individualist abilities will remain an awareness to only this individual, in fullness. If a system shows desire to change to suit itself for knowing different abilities within different individuals, its change will be meaningless. This has always been due to all system’s inability to comprehend an individual enough to separate their incorrect behavior from what they understand has always been valued. For if it can be due to an addict’s addiction that rules them enough to override their value for things with their incorrect behaviors, this cannot be an awareness for anyone except for an addict. To change an institution to better benefit an individual’s ways will require knowledge of a person. Although, no amount of knowledge or resources given to a person, with their degrading faults, will replace their comprehension over themselves without such appearing as a sameness to what they have been doing to themselves, being to override their values with their behaviors with their addiction.

If a person can enter an institution to exit this place still with their faults, there cannot be a flawed institution. Instead, there remains a flawed individual or even a flawed family unit. As perhaps a secondary individual who knows this flawed individual might be their closest friend or relative, if such can be around to aid said flawed individual, it will prove better than any institution. Comprehension of an individual to all that makes them an individual with capabilities, instead of among an incapable collective, can come only from an area of individualism, not collectivism. All knowledge to a person comes from that person, themselves, or from a secondary person who knows enough to not replace that flawed individual’s knowledge of themselves, though to bring a perspective forth in light of their silence.

Quote – “A Fundamental Difference between Love & Hatred” – 5/11/2022

“A difference resides between love and hatred, in that this former state of being feels everything of another person, whereas this latter one feels everything oneself feels. Love feels all of another’s emotions. Hatred feels only what oneself has been feeling. This has been due to genuine hate coming from love. Hatred has always been a negative twist upon love, usually due to betrayal. Upon betrayal, a physical dislocation of another person from oneself causes pain to be personal. Though only personal, since while hatred morphed from love, a betrayed individual can only feel what has been removed.”

– Modern Romanticism

Quote – “The Real Meaning Behind Anti-Science” – 4/5/2022

“Anti-science: universally agreeing with science. When a politician will say, ‘follow the science’, they won’t be for science, because that politician is telling you to agree with the science, without ever questioning the legitimacy behind the data. When the scientific method must require falsifiability for itself to be disprovable, then it is science. And when you ask any scientist what science might be, the most basic response might be, ‘science is everything true, until proven false’. If that’s the case, then some politician who tells you to follow the science is telling you to ‘follow the pseudoscience’. It should be seen as normal for a politician to do this, considering their career in deception.”

– Modern Romanticism