Philosophy – “Why a Legal System should Ignore a Criminal’s Remorse” – 12/6/2021

“What is Justice, if not blind? If a world considers the emotions of a wrong doer, then there will be praiseworthy wrong doers.”

– Modern Romanticism

Justice is blind. It should not consider the remorse of the criminal, because itself is kept upon the peace of society. The peace of society, that the criminal had disrupted, is always for Justice to enact itself upon the individual who was against the social life. That is, Justice is correct to operate against those who rebel against society.

It was always due to ignorance that the person, now named a criminal, had done a wrong. Since we are ignorant always of what is not close to us, would then make society always a place for rebellion’s sake and causes. When society is rebelled against, it is always criminal behavior, due to how ignorant is to the mind of a person who could not be close to their environments. A rebellion against an environment is to never find their surroundings familiar. In contrast, the familiarity of one’s own child will not be received with as much likelihood of rebellion. Although, even if the child is neglected, it is a crime to be considered from those the criminal personally knew to be more of a shock. If to rebel against society is seen as the norm, however, then both ignorance and crime dealt from such ignorance also are.

We cannot consider what we are in knowledge of, such as our children, as able to be rebelled against without the literal definition of betrayal being applied. If society is meant to change, if systems are meant to be improved, if structure is meant to be rebuilt, then none of this can compare to things always familiar.

It is the knowledge of what is familiar that becomes something seen as unchangeable. It was not meant to be, in a protector’s eyes, altered or damaged. Though, the remorse of a person is clear for what they know. If any criminal act, even one of genuine betrayal, is understood by Justice, then it would not even consider the remorse from even those crimes considered most personal or emotional. When in consideration of remorse, Justice releases its own blindfold. Justice becomes aware. Though, Justice is meant to consider how an individual has disrupted the peace of society. If it considers what society thinks of an individual, then it becomes social justice. Social justice is only for the purpose of noting what a collective can do for an individual. If that were the place of actual Justice, then we will inevitably praise crime and wrongdoing. That is because this method of awareness for crime and wrongdoing, when perpetrated out of ignorance against society, will only consider what is meant to be aware of the individual, the criminal. There is then no legal system. In these aware methods for social justice, there would not be the understanding of what such crime, out of ignorance, has caused.

We view the emotional cases, as viewing a criminal for perhaps murdering their own child, as more shocking than to kill a stranger. However, it is the murderer’s betrayal of what is known of that person, that they became content in believing their loved one should receive damage, instead of protection. No one will defend society, because it is what is there for rebellion’s sake. However, humans are perhaps cursed to dwell among society, making it their inevitable habitat. If society receives endless change, then it will receive the same treatment of rebellion. Knowing only the ignorance of the criminal to that society is how Justice should operate. It is since their ignorance is always born upon the eternal understanding of society as unfamiliar.

Philosophy – “The Lack of Humility in Today’s Justice” – 4/21/2021

“Is there truly a winner in a scenario where both sides are at a loss?”

– Modern Romanticism

Justice is served, as it is said. Though, to make Justice personal, turns it into Vengeance. An emotional story. A heartbreaking story. If one considers the weight of emotions, then perhaps one will be brought low in the humility behind objective Justice. Perhaps one will gravitate downward, through their tears and grief, in the comprehension that they’ve lost, as well.

War is justified, only when we understand no one has won. In the pain, by that lacing of humanity around ourselves, we know ourselves immediately as beyond the flame of power and control. Otherwise, we are as the beast, simply seeking to destroy.

In today’s subjective comprehension of Justice, it has become Vengeance. One cannot interpret Justice, without its objective meaning becoming splintered into individualized and segregated understandings of it. When the definition of Justice becomes individualized or broadened, it becomes Vengeance. Of a word, by itself, that references order, never division, then to just interpret it would make it its opposite. And, what does Vengeance give for the person who enacts it? It is to nothing but the reminder of what was lost. Unless, that is, one did not care for what was lost, and simply was the spectator to the entire scenario.

Everyone loses, in a dealing of Justice. Whereas, people are forced to remember the loss, when they wish to deal Vengeance. It becomes a cycle of loss, never of humanity where people can understand each other through their tears. Mutual understanding of pain comes not through the flames of ambition, though through the waters of humility.

People must weep, to understand pain and loss, itself.

Simply move on past the loss, or cling to the idea that one’s loss was instead one’s gain.

Philosophy – “Why Life is Not Fair… and should Never be” – 4/18/2021

“No Man nor Woman is equal, so long as we compete, or if it is when we do not love, or if it is that we are not dead.”

– Modern Romanticism

Life is a competition. Anything besides love or death, is a fluctuation of stampeding revolution. For it is not life that is opposite from death, as it is love which is. Both love and death are equal, in power, making everything of the in-between as able to be prepared. As it is, we are never prepared for the onslaught of love, in our blindness. And, we are never prepared for the oncoming death of ourselves, being blind to its exact moment.

In life, we are able to choose. We possess freedom. Neither in love, nor in death, and we possess freedom outside of such shelters. For we cannot choose to love nor to die, unless suicide has an element for either. If for self-destruction, in suicide, with love or death, then it is not of either. It is due to absent trust, that a person commits the act of suicide. With choice, we are better able to deconstruct to analyze, to understand that the death of another gives us meaning to move on. Through choice, we do destruct, we do fell the thing that was deemed as needless or a burden, so that we might have our freedom.

To the concept of fairness, there are battles for it. Through choice, or with freedom, or with competition, there are battles in this endless war. A war for freedom, for one is not gifted it. People are meant to earn their lives, as they earn their supposed fairness. People are born, yet that is the gift to be loved. Though, once independence unto individualism is able to be maintained, there is what has been earned. The life for the individual, the place for them, the way for them, among all principles and standards that this person has developed themselves upon. It is to fairness, that to introduce or to gift it, welcomes slavery into a realm. What else defines the slave, except for their inability to earn their freedom or fairness?

To introduce fairness is to make things unfair for those who are wishing to earn it. In this, skillsets lessen, and people will worsen. Death is the result, being the equality that is opposite from love. We die, in something that wasn’t earned. We do not love, because we failed to recognize what is equality.

Quote – “To Debunk the Collective” – 7/24/2020

“Love is the emotion intended to create wholeness (oneness) from the collective. A collective, in such a sense, is only a mere fragmented whole, being of beauty or life. Hatred would look upon the collective, and keep it as is, for it would know it to be weak.

If the Communist sides with the collective, of their regime, it is they who will resent the individual, enough to prevent the building of a whole. They’d do so, in deconstructing a population’s morale, their homes, their livelihood, in the division of wealth. A collective is the division. A collective is not a whole. An individual is a whole. An individual is the single bullet meant to destroy the regime that manipulates the pieces, being the collective.

Why would the individual fight the seeds, when it can cut the stem? Why would a Communist fight the stem when it can cut the roots?

Fear is thus the foundation to life. Beauty is a collective, broken, until love makes it whole, being from the individual.”

– Modern Romanticism

Quote – “The Importance for Personal Responsibility” – 7/18/2020

“The responsibility that equates to the individual, being of what they know best, might be their act of dismantling and destroying the rest of the globe, if that individual responsibility is lacking. To speak on the collective as though it is more important than the individual, is cynical enough to never believe that the individual, for what they know best, would not spread their individual irresponsibility to the collective and create the further problem. It is to state the collective would suffer, meet its downfall, when that individual’s irresponsibility has further damaged the walls around them, in everything they can deconstruct by their ignorance.”

– Modern Romanticism