Socialists – Modern Romanticism

A Critique on Marxism – Pt. 2 – “Why a System of Selflessness should Never be” – 1/23/2021

“In highest knowledge of the issues to a person, is always in lowest ignorance to the individual.”
– Modern Romanticism

When does a government ever comprehend the system of empathy as non-existent? Systemic empathy is the same as non-empathy. To comprehend the many issues a singular person faces, is not to know the universal fault for which is the individual. One could have knowledge of societal problems, though never knowledge of people. One could know the issues a person faces, though should they never get to understand the individual, they have missed the target of the true problem.

Where is the genuine nature of a government? Of a collective comprehending collective issues, is never individuals understanding each other. This is where ennui takes place. To know what a person’s problems are, leaves out the knowledge for what a person knows of themselves. As in, for what an individual understands of themselves, is in fullest certainty, whether hidden or revealed, that they are the source of all their misfortune. For should they be the irresponsibility that caused their issues, then what does a government do for that? If it was irresponsibility of the individual that caused the issues to which the government is expected to care for, then it will be the further irresponsibility of the government that worsens the individual. How can a government care for what it cannot care for, of what it cannot see, cannot ever employ the empathy towards without it being unequal?

Irresponsibility is to never know the issue, while responsibility comprehends the source to all issues. Love sees exactly what a person faces of themselves, and it is that a government can never be loving. As that source is the irresponsibility and lack of accountability to an individual, it will be the opposite mindsets that makes a person know themselves. One fails, without knowing themselves. One loses everything, without keeping track of themselves. If one has lost their course, one has lost themselves, one doesn’t understand themselves, and then one desires a new identity. Why should selflessness be a system, when people are not systemically capable of it? Why should it be a societal measure, when empathy cannot be emplaced through such a mechanical way, called a “system”? Why is selflessness ever defined as such, when we are consistently ignorant of people?

Would it be more brave to help a person’s issues, or to help a person?

Does empathy ever offer the equality people wish for, or is it selective based on what we personally comprehend of ourselves? It is always the latter, as we know empathy to be.

This is not selflessness. This is not empathy. One should never expect the collective to understand nor to empathize with the individual. It is impossible. Only an individual can peer into the eyes of another, to understand their imperfections are the same as the former’s own. That is called “humanity”.

The most beautiful part of a human being is to know another human being. That, there cannot be a perfect system of selflessness, if we are unaware of ourselves being imperfect. Closeness, between individuals, would be the inevitable result of people who understand that a “fault” has to do with “being human”, not developing a solution to counter such an eternal problem as to be such.

To know ourselves, the individuals, as imperfect, is to comprehend another as the same, as another individual, with imperfections all of the same origin. If we diversify this, then we divide, and then no individual understands where a person’s true problem resides. For when we never understand an individual, though only focus on what they are challenged with, that person despises themselves more often for what they secretly know of themselves.

When all people become individuals, then they understand the truest threat, being themselves when only knowing their faults, being left alone with such imperfections, without the necessity for comparison.

Philosophy – “A Critique upon Marxism” – 6/22/2020

“No living human can see themselves, to believe the world has shaped them, without neglecting themselves without a choice. In the lack of choice, we behold ourselves responsible. To this, why not the individual see themselves the responsible one, to blatantly ascribe to be something unlike the world?”
– Anonymous

Marxism will state that society and the world, are the issues of Man. It deconstructs, utilizing the methods of science to engross the world in mass change. To what change respects, it is chaos. To what union states, it is improvement. Unity resonates with no dissection of a world, for that inevitably causes the dissection of ourselves.

When we dissect what is around, the damage is reflected upon ourselves in our lives. That is because even to the child, there is our responsible self being reflected in their eyes, to what they have learned. Have we abandoned them to know on their own? And, to society and its realms, it is the same as the example of the child. What is around, is what we have either created or caused. Creation to causation. It is the two modes of the lifting that pertains to the improvement, to the dissecting that pertains to the change.

Improvement and change, they are not alike. We must bring love into this critique, to understand that “love”, by how it is defined, is the union. No dissection is under love, while no improvement is under change. Under change, there is randomness and a lack of attention. A lack of focus, means for those with material power to gain their material ground. They gain their material ground over those without attentiveness. For those who possess power over the ones with attentiveness to themselves, comprehend the population as blind. Blindness believes in what it can feel. Therefore, blindness will not ever believe in what it cannot see. Such means it will not believe in union, and will always believe in dissection.

What is change if not the transformation, of randomness, of the unexpected, of the uncontrolled, of the chaotic, of the unpredictable?

What is improvement if not the uplifting of what is weak, been abandoned out of negligence, been left for dead?

Marxism divides opinions, divides voice, until the words of a public become fainter and fainter. Does love shout? Or, is love simply boldness? We cannot deconstruct our environments, without deconstructing ourselves. We prove ourselves as the ignorant one when we look upon our creation, to see what we have caused, and never have built.

It is the bravest thing for any human to realize that they possess no choice, in a matter when they want one.

An Observation/Excerpt from Former Post – “The Definition of Corruption” – Psychology – 2/6/2020

What is “corruption”, as a definition? Corruption is appetite, and “appetite” is the most fundamental of human desires. Hunger, is always a trait for the self. Practical ways will not cure it, but more-so make people give into selfishness. Corruption comes around when we realize our own nightmares and fears are stemming from a continuous distrust in those who actually may feel our pain. They rise, these nightmares, like Hell made a reality. A pauper feels another pauper’s pain, like death comprehends death. But, what of a former pauper to feel a current pauper’s pain? That is empathy. That is identical to life seeing death, and understanding it. Forming a relationship through empathy creates closeness and trust. However, forming a relationship through sympathy will always operate more on distrust than trust. For the “sharing of bread” is most certainly the same as the “sharing of pain”, and we have empathy in that.