Philosophy – “A Different Argument against the Pro-Choice Argument” – 4/3/2022

“When choice is a factor for being itself, as the place of knowing it was one thing or another, then what wasn’t chosen is what might or might not be the correct decision, according to another factor, being responsibility. For if we are able to choose, then we are able to be free. However, if we know what must be done, then we have no choice but to do what gears us towards the responsibility that, when beside choice, is not our voice for freedom, or escapism.”

– Modern Romanticism

Deciding on what must be done involves entering into inner dialogue and debate, with the self, upon which is the best course of action. Although, to involve a second choice is automatically the inclusion of choice, itself. If, for example, a person has a sick relative who can only trust that person to take care of them, with no one else share the same level of this faith, then to involve choice with this is to make an excuse for freedom, or escapism’s, sake. It’s to mean that involving choice with the singular goal for what a person knows is correct to do, is to make the escape away from being responsible.

Another example includes a criminal who, through any method available to them, attempts to avoid responsibility of their wrongdoings, simply through the wish for a choice. When a criminal wants to escape from prison, instead of keeping their time in place to contemplate, and even better themselves, over their wrongs, they have embraced choice instead of responsibility.

When we remain wishing to choose, instead of staying upon a straightforward path, then we are simply straying our eyes to look away from what must be held with honesty. If we do not wish to be with our spouse, wanting to involve choice with this by committing infidelity, then we will not admit to them that they are not compatible with us. We will simply do everything in the name of choice, behind their back. More than this, we will make the excuse, and only could it ever be an excuse, that we are doing what is best for ourselves, naming this as “noble”. And we, with firmness to our intentions, state that selfishness could not ever be wrong, all due to the excuse that choice was a benefit.

Indeed, choice resembles freedom. Freedom is good. But often does it occur, when we are trusted to do the right thing, that we will involve choice so that we will begin doing the wrong thing. Even then, we will label wrong as good, as we might state what is ugly is still beautiful.

Lines become blurred. Truth becomes distorted.

When do we begin to state, honesty even to ourselves, that wrong is wrong, while right is right? We know pain, or perhaps we only know our own, when we involve choice to our intentions, in that we do not wish to be alone among it. Humans always feel better, surrounded by those of our own kind, who hold the same motives, the same desires. To that, choice is accompanied, because we are deciding upon what is popular, not what is good for ourselves.

Love Quote – “Love Someone more than Yourself” – 4/1/2022

“We are afraid of the hurt that love can cause. We are often willing to avoid it, at all costs. When thinking for this, we believe it better to be feared, than to be loved, though only the latter requires more risk. When we love someone else more than ourselves, then when the other is lost, we comprehend loss. There is no true realization of value, until what was lost is not returning. Are people so easily able to eject love from their hearts, as though it was merely a flake of debris? Why not let love attach itself, as though something unable to be freed, and as if you are barred within it?”

– ModerN Romanticism

Philosophy – “The Problem with Caring for yourself, before Others” – 3/14/2021

“The basics, of food, water, and shelter are all that should be required to ‘care for yourself’.”

– Modern Romanticism

There is a sincere fault within people’s mind, as of the current setting to this world, that to believe one should care for oneself is the only requirement for extended life. In this belief, there are no individuals with such a mentality to ever comprehend that it is what is behind, not what is in front, that encourages ourselves to move. As in, for who has died for us, for who have sacrificed themselves for us, pushes us, not pulls us, on towards the future.

Though, when certain sorts, as well, believe that the self is first, before others, a belief that relationship quality is paramount only to its “purpose” is never to understand such a concept. A concept of belonging in a relationship, whether of the romantic kind or a friendship, has little to do with purpose. All relationships, instead, hold a focus upon accident or imperfection. As in, we will reveal too little to others, out of what we reveal, in fullest extent, to ourselves. This is merely to say that we only trust ourselves, too fearful to extend beyond just that.

Are relationships ever that systematic? Do we ever accomplish such “relationship goals” through a step-by-step process, or are there always fumbles and accidents that are necessary to be expected?

Relationships cannot go as one expects. Instead, relationships should be expected only for the most unexpected to arrive.

We do not go to a department store to pick out a friend, nor a romantic partner, as that would pertain to use. As well, it would pertain to purpose, in the belief that a person within one’s own life was never by accident in their arrival. To then believe all relationships should hold purpose, or else what is the point, is to deny their definition. That is, to define all relationships is simply by the imperfections we comprehend of ourselves, to the point where we identify with another the same flawed traits. Though, even though this definition, nothing can be foreseen. Nothing ever is, because what we dislike of ourselves is never revealed, until we come upon the one who can reveal it.

Love holds more than the self, and is ever greater than what we idealize to ourselves. Idealizing another person is just as terrible, because that references what we want, versus what we do require.

While love cannot be termed as anything specific, to any relation of what we most desire, makes such a force more to do with what is beyond the simple necessity to survive. If we are killed by love, then we have lived next to it, believing in the other’s words that have necessitated us to stay with them.

Chapter Three – Part III – “Defeat for Self-Love” – From “The Disregarding of Science to the Mind” – 1/8/2021

Love for the self does not dig deep, for no person can empathize with themselves. If one has no comprehension for what one struggles with, then this supposed “self-love” will linger upon the exterior, because it is the same as finding comfort in deception. Deception or self-deception, with the latter being the chosen usage of description for this, is how a person applies “self-love” to their appearances. In refraining from believing themselves hideous, they only not judge nor shame who they are, because this sort of love is always false. That is due to such a deception upon the self cannot ever be the judgement that understands. Love is a judgement, being one that entertains to the deeper and more concealed parts of another human being. It is then always what is not of us, being of others, where empathy extends itself.

When a person relies on identification for the self, comprehends this as the only way for them to be proud, then they have automatically renounced empathy. Their loss of humanity, by this regard, is due to the refusal of coinciding “identity” with that of another person. As it is, each person who solely wishes to identify as themselves, in believing this uniqueness defines or redefines themselves, have been lost on all levels of empathy.

It is that empathy is the identification upon someone else, to see one’s own reflection in another as a way to understand that hurt is the same, by all walks of life. If such people of their “self-identification” ideology could ever comprehend the idea behind identifying with another, they’d regain their touch with empathy. Due to not being in such a mindset of empathy, their only path is the one of the narcissist.

If a person rejects judgement, then they reject love or the genuine care and concern offered by someone else. Thus, by this rejection, trust has also been refused. From this, trust breaks, and division is the causation to which two people cannot unite in the creation of it.

A chaotic heart is always something which displays itself by misused trust, broken vows, and the sheer abandonment of one’s nobility. One has wanted a choice, and what comes from this is always the chaos that never relates to objectively correct actions. To be “objectively correct” in what one does, is to never have a choice, pertaining here to how a person who possesses genuine care for another person. They feel no choice but to help them. They point out a flawed person’s issues, out of care.

Because of the rejection of such “judgement”, that flawed person rejects love. This becomes the “self-love” through which a person places upon external or appearance-wise matters of themselves. It is again to wonder on how a person can empathize with themselves, when a person who claims to love themselves only cares for what they can instantly understand. It always takes more contemplation to understand the deeper and more embedded faults. However, such a period of contemplation will not come quick enough, if such issues are deconstructing an individual with more swiftness. This is to say that “self-love” may perhaps regenerate what is damaged outside of the person, so that a good appearance can attract better friendships. Are the betterment to these new friendships, only the result of lacking empathy? As an example, those who smoke surround themselves with others who do the same. Nothing of empathy, even in such an example, would result in the digging out of those deeper matters. It is this, if all a person of “self-love” does is bury their concerns even further by continuing to tend to the outside.

It must be the case, that when a person has no outside empathy given towards themselves, their only option becomes to tend to what is damaged, externally. How does external and physical healing bring about the reveal of what perhaps is not being opened up to others? There are those who adopt a mask, as this becomes the new “identity” for a supposed “hero” who claims to have become the “person they were hiding from”. Of superheros within comics, could it be said that their heroism is a divide between what they truly are within, and who they are pretending to be on the outside? This would make their costume and mask the mere lie, while their true identity has yet to be revealed.

Who could understand the superhero, empathize with or perhaps even save them from inner turmoil? By the same example, how does a superhero who repairs their costume after a battle still live up to the truth of who they are, within themselves, without still constantly burying that pain?

Unity has no partake of commonality without identified common factors, as empathy has no way to dig without comparison in what underlies all the overlying stains.

Healthcare – “Why Individual Concern is Best” – 1/8/2021

“Go on. Laze around. Tell yourself the problem will disappear, if you just place yourself in a hospital. For if there is no greater source than the source, itself, then the cure cannot touch it if a person never admits to themselves as the problem.”

– Modern Romanticism

Accountability. Responsibility. Discipline. These are the factors rarely ever acquired, by your average supposed individualist. There are those who display themselves as images, because a picture cannot alter itself without deception. To cover the truth, requires a mindset unwilling to expose oneself not as an image of difference, though as the recognition in which another person could identify with.

This is the empathy it requires to resolve another person’s issue, through one’s love and genuine concern for them. Why would we only wish to identify with ourselves, in displaying pride for our held differences, if not only to be proud for what is wrong with us, because no one cares for us?

This is the truth that states healthcare to change will only be the lie that conceals what a person inherently comprehends is their true problem. It is not in whatever disease they hold, as it is in what caused the disease. Even of genetic diseases and disorders, there had still been a long line of irresponsibility that had caused such. To imagine that example as a long line in a family history of drug addicts, to make offspring after offspring possessing numerous genetic deficiencies, was not something simply to blame on birth. There was individual fault in that example.

In making Healthcare “free for all” only embeds a longstanding problem, that deals with individual irresponsibility. The more irresponsibility is shared among people, the more burden is placed on the Healthcare system. This same example would go for a family, where the more negligence is existent among it, the more conflict and the more desired outside reliance for a “cure” to it. How is a marriage counselor going to be effective at solving nuptial conflict, if the two spouses do not see the individual necessity to solve what is wrong? This is the same reason why rehabilitation centers for addicts do not work, much of the time.

Do the same people who stick to being irresponsible, somehow support divorce and ruined families? Are they this sadistic? They must be, if these mindsets easily align.

Do the same people who support Healthcare as “free for all”, somehow also support the negligence it requires to sink oneself into a state of individualist decline? Do some of these people make a habit of scorning the common person who dares to have the strength to pick themselves back up?

Are these people perhaps those who would say a person who attempts or successfully commits suicide was “brave”, though would say to a person who found a way out of their depression that they are a “coward”?

These are the people without empathy, selfish in the mind to believe that if no one cares for them, they can care for themselves only in displaying themselves as an image. As it is, an image or sameness only ever changes if a lie is added to it, to conceal what is truly wrong. It’s the same as smearing the world with paint, so that the underlying universal understanding never shows. Perhaps that is why people are “proud”, to display their own flag as every color of the rainbow, representing the lies they use to conceal what is truly the source of the issue.

How many people who put themselves out there as an image, said to “come out of the closet” to “show themselves”, are cited as “brave” individuals? If this is the case, then why not forget those people who saved the lives of others, in their worst moments? Why not forget the people who died on battlefields? Because, if one merely believes that image is the best reason to show bravery in a cause, then just show every person who committed suicide, of one life that was never saved, on a pedestal for its image. If that becomes ever the case, we’d never understand what heroism truly is.

Philosophy – “Truth, Life, & Beauty – Criticism against Body Positivity” – 12/27/2020

“The life or beauty none so flawed is a lie none so truthful.”

– Modern Romanticism

Beauty is the image of any one person, so flawed as to consider their errors, their lack of accountability and responsibility. To the person who claims they are entirely beautiful or wholly without error, while in fact possessing ugliness, must also comprehend themselves as having a life of no flaws. Is not all life flawed? Is not all life so problematic? Therefore, to the one who claims their beauty to be flawless, must be the one with the mentality to say they are the lie without a hint of truth.

To the truth without a lie attached, or the beauty without ugliness involved, or the life without its committed errors, makes flawlessness or perfection an impossibility. Unless we are those who can live without mistakes, or those can speak without telling lies, or those who can appear as something without looking hideous to a person’s eyes, we are flawed. As humans, we are.

Body positivity is no more than the lie that claims to speak of truth, the beauty that claims to mimic perfection, and the life that claims to never learn from any error.

Truth, life, and beauty hold the same meaning. They are equivalent to things so errored, so imperfect, that anything other than their definition would be heinous and deceptive.

For the person to say their beauty is not a mark of ugliness, is same to say that their life is not a mark of error, which is also same to say they cannot be truthful to themselves. In this case, they are endlessly lying to have their way. To “have one’s way” means to deceive, to leave out the necessity for responsibility, and to cheat one’s way to the top.

We cannot be positive, unless we are negative to the greatest weakness any human can possess. And, that is, to believe one lacks a weakness, for that is a lie, is against life, is against beauty.

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 – “To Hell with all Redefinitions, Difference, & Uniqueness” – 9/12/2020

“All originality pertains to the stagnant history of a thing, of a creation, of a development. When people can pertain their future to the history, they are responsible. For responsibility could only ever amount to a person knowing that their history cannot change. And so, the future should not change, though simply improve. For if they were to change their history, they’d change their identity, and they’d just change, not improve, their future. Through such division of difference, and such redefining of uniqueness, we repeat a bloodbath for a history. We repeat the core of human history, pertaining to selfish pride.”

– Modern Romanticism

All history is stagnant. All history is repeated through redefining of definitions, of words, of the world. For such is the reference to the redefinition, or the remaking, of history or our identity. As our history or identity is meant to remain stagnant, and never changed, it is through irresponsibility that a person does not keep such an identity stagnant. Responsibility is the sameness of a thing. Irresponsibility is the chaos that comes from redefinitions and change.

We are irresponsible, because we do not want to keep definitions the same. That is irresponsibility, because to be irresponsible means to never keep things pure. We are responsible in such a sense, when in love, or when we act on our love for a family member or friend. We want to keep them unwounded. We want to keep them unbroken. Such responsibility makes a person remain in that sameness.

As sameness relates to responsibility, then it is change, chaos, and repetition that relates to irresponsibility. How often is a man said to want to protect his woman? How often does a woman state that she doesn’t want to be protected by her man? Sameness for the former. Change and chaos for the latter.

Humans change by redefining their history. For the word “change” has a definition of its own. Not of sameness, makes that definition, when the word has no relation to logic or improvement. Logic has its relation to improvement, while change does not.

Any nation’s voting system, to term limits for a president or prime minister, makes such ways pertain to change, not improvement. Not of sameness, and the differing ideologies create the eventual chaos, for eventual nationwide political upheaval.

The person who believes themselves unique, believes themselves redefined. Once again, all redefinitions pertain to the lack of stagnancy that follows a lack of responsibility in repeating the past. We repeat the past, because we developed a world out of change and repetition. Change and repetition, versus improvement and stagnancy, are the only differences one should notice.

Improvement has no relation to stagnancy. Change does, however, because it goes in every direction, besides upwards. Improvement moves upwards, towards an eternity where once in outer space, there is no direction. For there is no direction in outer space. Though, improvement heads in that direction where change and chaos is impossible.

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.

Philosophy – “The False Promotion of Self-Esteem” – 7/10/2020

“In a world full of towers, only their shadows make themselves the blankets over what cannot sprout.”

– Modern Romanticism

What becomes of a person who is encouraged to feel good of themselves, not care for what others think of them, and to be their own person? They become the one who never yearns to see the world of another, because in being simply themselves, they never want to be someone else. For if they were someone else, they’d see another world, learn something vast, and be empathetic.

Self-esteem is only ever lowered, when a person will care for what others think, either of them or of others around them. That is, they are brought down with the rest, to the level of pain. A person, in pain, is someone who can connect at their origin. Where a person began, is pain. This origin is also another person’s origin. An origin, or roots, make us the beginning of all life. It is the level where any person can connect to another, around them.

When a person lives, they find light. When a person is in pain, again, they are beginning, once more. Therefore, the person, in pain, has stooped to the level of their own roots. They see the seeds that have yet to be sprouted. It is backwards-thinking to assume that when we are small, we are thought of by others who have grown. It is, instead, correct thinking to believe that when we have grown, we are thought of by others yet to be grown.

Those who grow, are those who are growing alongside others in their growth. Those who have grown, are meant to stoop down, while being cut to the size of those who have yet to grow.

Even those who have grown, can feel the pain of vulnerability. They feel small, in that vulnerable state, like being a child, once more.

To promote self-esteem continuously makes a person who believes, in their heart, that they cannot be cut down. They are, as well, in the belief that no one is able to think critical of them. Because of this, they do not look to their feet. In not looking down, in continually being told to “keep their chin up”, they do not see who suffers at their feet. Again, to have low self-esteem, is to be dropped to the level of those sufferers. To empathize and to be human, is to be in the same shoes, the same world, as where a person suffers.

Quote – “Why Self-Love has no Meaning” – 6/13/2020

“Is love a gift? If so, then how does one gift themselves love? Is love based on trust? If so, then how does one earn trust, for themselves? Does love involve comprehending ourselves? If so, then how can we comprehend ourselves, without interacting with others?

What love is, is not the lust that is for the self. It is not love, but lust, that is for the self. How does one not comprehend the difference? Love is objectively an external offering. Lust is the notion by which a person buys something through monetary value, for themselves. Love is the gift. Lust is the gain. If one disagrees, then it is to be assumed that this person sees another person as alike a slave. For that slave will be bought off an auction through monetary value, to never be loved, though to be used and manipulated. Used and manipulated, like any object that has only limited duration, only for it to be tossed aside when worn through. Because, unlike lust, love won’t have any limited duration.

Is the treatment of any object not what lust is? Is it not the personal gain in the view of seeing someone as a tool, never to be loved? Is that what people are, to such ones who can say that lust is the same as love?”

– Anonymous

Philosophy – “In the Mass Production of Minorities” – 6/7/2020

By what it refers to, the mass production of minorities, the creation of identities, is less of a focus on truth, and more of a focus on deception. By what this means, we are showing less of a focus on life and expression, and more of a focus on division. Such means, that through a focus on division, we are focusing on our identity or appearance, in our want to have it stand out more than another’s. We are not in the want to know someone else, through this upholding of our own self-worth.

In having less of a focus on expression, and more of a focus on identification or origin, we focus less on creating what can stem from an origin, and more on the creation of identities.

The mass production of people with their identities, is never going to be defined as the quality to which comes from an origin. An origin, being made up of traditions and values, cannot be mass produced without lessening the value within those traditions, and thus, stifling the quality into the mere quantity of them. To say that each person upon Earth holds their own origin, is merely negating the fact that every life to a person begins with pain, with struggle. For to live, means to have beaten the anguish and despair that held one back from life.

The mass production of minorities is merely the mass production of identities, of the pain that sources division by what “division” references. That is, division references a lack of comprehension upon how another person began. We believe we are unique, compared to them, or in contrast to them. Don’t we all have the same beginnings, like having the same endings? Is any person not simply born, or is any person not simply dead?

There is no uniqueness to a person’s identity or origin, as much as there’s always a uniqueness to a person’s expression from that origin. Such means, that there is a uniqueness to the expressiveness within life.

One cannot comprehend another without that expression, that would be related to an art form. Thus, without such comprehension, and with so much of a focus on identification, there is division.