Tag: Self-Worth

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.

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 – “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.

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.

A Quote of Wisdom – “A Person’s Discovery to their Identity is not Heroic” – 3/11/2020

“A hero’s identity is not meant to be discovered, not meant to be revealed, not meant to be known. Why would we say in today’s world that a person is heroic by their identity being discovered, if not to reverse the actions of a hero, to the words of a hero?

To reveal, comes as the spoken statement, the confession, of a supposed hero, or rather, a defeated hero. Seduction. We become so-called ‘heroes’ through words, when we are trusted for them, but seen for our truth when others see our actions. In today’s world, a man can call himself a woman, through words, though their actions will prove otherwise.

Deception. Cunning. Manipulation. These things are not of the hero, but of the selfish ordinary person. All these things co-exist with words, not actions.

To discover the identity of yourself, to reveal your identity to the world, is not a heroic thing. You have merely reversed the objective definition of heroism, which means to be protective of others. And, for the hero to conceal their identity, means that such a mask symbolizes the only way they can protect themselves.”

A Quote of Wisdom – “Self-Identification Solidifies Narcissism” – 3/5/2020

“The mentality that speaks of a person only capable of knowing themselves, is to reject the empathy from another. We have rejected the words from another person, that is, who says to ourselves, ‘I have walked that same road.’ With an immense focus on the past, we face the direction of pain. Empathy knows pain, from one person to another. Empathy is the driving connection, from one human to another. By facing the direction of pain, we regress, and ‘understand ourselves’ or ‘know ourselves’ only by embracing hatred, when we reject empathy. When we reject the empathy from another in how an external person can understand us, we reject love. What is strength, besides a place where we are in, when we are past the past, or past the pain, and looking forward to brightness? True strength resides in a future without fear.

For if we say to ourselves to remain in the present, and not focus on the past nor the future, we will find that to be impossible. We will inevitably have a focus, as either the past or the future. With that, we become the ones to either be hateful or loving. Hatred for the focus that is on the past. Love for the focus that is on the future.”

“Self-Discovery” is the Act of Discovering an Ugly Past

“Each human individually places their ugliness to the past, everything they dislike about themselves to the past; though, when they begin to be encouraged to discover themselves, accept themselves, they are within the act of reliving what they dislike about themselves, and they never improve. To see the past as something to put behind, a tragedy, perhaps, to remember, but never relive, is to objectively see the word ‘ugly’ as something of self-discovery.”