Society – Modern Romanticism

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.

Philosophy – “Why Psychology is Infinitely More Valuable than Sociology” – 11/27/2022

“We, as a species, only got as far with curing bodily ailments, providing food for the homeless, creating a higher degree of welfare for those with their numbered disabilities as scratching the surface. For isn’t that what a physical fault relates to, the body? Beneath the pained, starving, or paralyzed flesh, a human being is an entity most hidden.”
– Modern Romanticism

A plethora of issues that a human might face can be extended beyond the boundaries of their flesh, residing within themselves, not of the organs, muscles, nor their bones; for this metaphor compares to their mind. A person’s mind, misunderstood and often misjudged, remains complex to the sociological individual who will tackle all physical-related, existent issues. In comprehending a physical fault, we tell it as an existing one. Though, to the metaphysical or psychological problem, we can find ourselves better off to admit it does not exist. Can we find it necessary to change the term “cancer” to something other than cancer? Though, we’ll find it necessary to change the term shell shock several times to the point of keeping it as PTSD. We’ll say it is necessary to denounce the term “dork” or “retard” for a replacement term, since these examples have been misunderstood and also misjudged. With cancer, we comprehend its deadliness because of its blatant visibility. All can comprehend the sociological extent of it, because cancer does not directly target the psychology of those afflicted by it. There is no need to change the term “cancer” to something other than cancer.

Non-physical, psychological issues are misunderstood because they are deemed often as invisible. If psychology can be understood as more valuable than sociology, it is because when a world gets structured through the train of progress to seek solutions for the physical, bodily issues, it begins to neglect the more difficult, complex faults of the mind. An advocating group can gather together for a meeting on a problem that pertains directly to society. To their mission’s statement, it will be clear. However, if another group advocates on a fault pertaining not to society, though to psychology, their statement will be unclear merely because that group will be unclear of themselves of what solutions are available.

Whether it is the separation of church from state that sent away into history’s textbooks the horrifying methods for capital punishment, or it is the debate between mental illness and firearms access, comprehending psychology as more valuable than sociology is simply an admittance of what will receive negligence whenever a world has been formed to tackle issues it can better understand. The separation of church from state is no different than the debate between those who believe the individual is faulted for the gun or those who believe that the gun must be restricted of its ease of access. This lack of difference comes from the understandable difference between mind and body, or the difference between psychology and sociology. We can all deem progress as relevant when it tackles faults pertaining to social aspects and elements. Though, negligence of psychology and faults of the mind will be paramount when we forget what originated all physical faults to begin with. The mind does control the body. The voice controls the audience. The singular person before a podium conquers and directs the herd before them. There is worship and reverence, though sociology is simply the aftermath of psychology. Sociology would not be possible without psychology, just as an issue with mentally ill individuals being a sociological problem among police forces would not be existent without the emptying of mental asylums.

Philosophy – “Why the World Doesn’t Care” – 11/21/2022

“It shows a great deal of insecurity and even a sign of one’s attitude of betrayal to forget those who are closest to this individual and soon focus on the world of what it, in its vastness of distractions, should be paying attention to.”
– Modern Romanticism

We cannot expect the world to care. It is the same as expecting someone else, whom we don’t trust, to shoulder our personal woes and hardships. Who around has such broad-enough shoulders to be able to carry what we can no longer keep inside our hearts, our heads, or in our arms? When we expect someone else to do this, especially of “the world” or of “society”, we can be extending an expression of dismissal to their woes and hardships in our effort to place a greater light upon our own. We can also be extending an expression of dismissal to those who’ve known us, since our childhood, in favor of the world with its endless sea of distractions and other priorities.

The world doesn’t care, simply because it will, at most, extend a brief glimpse upon your torment, and then turn from it in the next second. For there are only two types of people who exist, upon when experiencing their empathy for another human being. There is either the type of person who stays, or there is the type of person who leaves. Upon the latter, empathy had been short-lived, and had receded into empathy’s opposite, being sympathy. Sympathy is where a person, once having involved themselves in another’s troubles, feels safest. In that safety, the comfort of witnessing pain from afar is where they believe there will be no longer a need to involve themselves. This becomes identified of “the world”, or of strangers who state their brief expressions of kindness, to suddenly mute those expressions and twist their forms back towards their own life with its own sorrows. However, among those who stay with those they’ve claimed to love, we can no longer view these people as part of “the world”. Rather, we admit that these people are part of “our world”.

If a homeless person is seen to be begging in the streets, they are begging for something that will vanish. For that includes the giver of a scrap of extra change found at the bottom of their pocket. A homeless individual is begging for something they comprehend will not stay. The other individual who had given that supposedly needless piece of extra change will also not stay. As for the world, does it care? It does not, while a homeless person’s evident wisdom comes at knowing that their problems are not the world’s problems. The cure to their problems is not what they can beg for, because all things a homeless person has been begging for will not solve what is actually wrong. It begs the question, is something wrong with the world, or is there something wrong with us? Within “the world” or “our world”, what is truly missing?

Philosophy – “Why Society is not to Blame, for your Errors” – 8/22/2022

“One who blames their individualist faults as having collective origins has forgotten that a problem will be fixed, through self-admittance. When one admits that their faults have been theirs, one can be aided through available resources. Although, admitting that these issues originate from one’s surroundings, instead of oneself, will mean that one no longer possesses an issue to be fixed. One has admitted, through this latter scenario, that this world must be repaired, while we can forget ourselves and others who have issues for a supposed fixed world to solve.”
– Modern Romanticism

A perfect world must be realized as even less realistic than a perfect individual. When we blame our surroundings, this world, this means we have not admitted that our faults are our own. To identify an issue will be first through admittance. Next, we take to resources. However, to skip over that stage of admittance will be for someone to venture to resources, though without such admittance for oneself, upon their issues, all resources will be wasted without comprehension for their proper application. Such means that if one blames all institutions for their inadequate or dysfunctional resources, one has blamed what gets wasted of this world before those who enter rehabilitation centers to waste their own time out of that misguided admittance for a fault.

If one blames their surroundings, before themselves, this way for admittance refers to their world as needing to care about such faults of individuals, while that individual must not care for their personal faults. Though, if a purpose to an institution will be to aid troubled individuals, what becomes of this purpose when an individual cannot be aided due to no focus of themselves upon themselves? With a world to focus on a troubled individual, there comes negligence to an individual upon themselves. We cannot blame dysfunctional institutions, when this purpose to aid troubled individuals becomes voided when believing that such institutions must be fixed, before those troubled individuals. This has been due to those troubled individuals lacking a requirement of care, to themselves, that no institution can offer, through a resource. As in, no resource exists that can teach a person to care for their own faults or to admit that their faults are their own. However, it has been an ease for an individual to instead blame their surroundings, before themselves.

If individuals will be neglected, while institutions must be saved, all have lost this understanding upon what holds fault. An individual cannot be taught to admit that their faults are because of themselves, or because of their own actions or inactions. Rather, an individual can be taught that these institutions are at fault, when it remains easier to blame such, over oneself.

Philosophy – “Why Progress does not Adhere to Accountability” – 1/11/2022

“To look upon the ruined castle or the Greek pillar, to then state, ‘Why has it become that way?’ and you should put blame on the word ‘change’. Progress is change. Progress suits a singular person’s vision. It is not improvement, this progress. It is merely the change to the world’s colors. A kaleidoscope that once held a well of infinite shades and hues, only to be grasped of a few by one person’s vision and shared with the environment.”
– Modern Romanticism

What improves of the world? Nothing. What changes of the world? Everything. One can witness and be understanding of the great many technological achievements built by great minds, though it cannot ever be said to be an improvement. We are always at square one, in a social realm, meant to be comprehensive of the fact that one change to our environments is destined to be altered or even replaced by someone else’s vision of something different.

One person’s vision is merely one change. A voice or an opinion is always a different one. We speak as one, only when we communicate as individuals, getting to know one another. Shared knowledge within a book is not like shared knowledge in terms of wisdom. We can document scientific research, though when we philosophize about something for a book, another person will interpret the words and it will become a lie. Truth is only measured when one listens to it, as deception is born from disagreement.

Upon a change, we have brought about one when we witnessed deception. And how are we accountable for the sacrifices made, through progress, when we replace the old world with a new one? When we exit the old and bring in the new, can we be held accountable for what we have broken to achieve what we have built?

The answer to such questions is that the progressive is not within their nature to hold accountability for change. Whether great change or moderate change, progress always slows when it must consider what it has brought down to next bring up.

If one of progress considers, even for a moment, what it has destroyed to raise what will be admired, there will be guilt. From pride of achievement to the shame of what was required to die to build something supposedly better, a progressive will be weighed by the guilt of the latter. He or she, the progressive, will find that through this guilt, they must apologize and hold accountability towards those who have suffered for their cause. If such accountability were to take place, progress would reach a dead-end. It might even reverse itself towards what the progressive will state as a “downfall of improvement”.

Just like the change of seasons, the environments alter themselves to different colors. These changes are noticeable whether in the leaves or the blankness of immaculate snow, or in the expressions upon people’s faces. Is the change of winter into spring an improvement? In the subjective sense, so-called improvement is only ever in the display of mood. It is a satisfaction, for the moment, before another change takes place and the mind also alters upon what it is feeling. As it is, change is temporary. It is fleeting. A mood or a feeling is temporary or fleeting. What of an improvement?

An improvement can only take place with the individual. An improvement is never external, though instead it is internal. Whenever we perceive a person to have changed, it is not the case. When we love a person, we have done so because we can. There was no prerequisite to love. We did so, because love epitomizes freedom. And when we say they have changed from when we once knew them, it is actually the case that they have placed layers of deception upon their truth. As was stated before, deception is to disagreement as truth must be listened to. We will disagree with the monster for their intolerant and abusive behaviors. Although, we cannot find it possible to disagree with what is within them, truly wanting to be let loose by a familiar sound or sight.

If we have change, we have lies. If we have improvement, we have truth.

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.

Summer Project – “A Two-Step Sequence to Problem Solving – From Delicate Heart to Resourceful Mind” – Chapter 1/50 – “To Define Order” – 5/28/2021

It is order that encompasses what does not, or should not, divide. A responsible person will comprehend order, since to divide oneself from it is to forsake what it means to earn one’s freedom. That is to say that to be ordered, even of the self, is to comprehend that one cannot be given freedom, because to earn it is to understand that one is no longer a slave. To be considered free, or to be freed out of one’s own doing to that station, is the very difference between something stagnant and what must be done.

To see a goodness in the word “freedom”, though never pertain it to order, is with the mindset of believing the former should be gifted through chaos. That is the endeavor of the person who misunderstands that to earn freedom, in its relation to how a person is ordered to the correction of themselves, is to have displaced the self from previous wrongdoing. A wrongdoing that, by example, would have a person incarcerated for an improper action, will make of the individual and only them needing to comprehend personal responsibility. It is in this case, or otherwise the wrongdoer will commit the same objective mistake, over again.

Mistakes become known to be objective, out of the person who realize their inabilities. To be incapable, is to know one is not meant to commit themselves to a certain action that would bring about mistakes. It is in a person’s uncontrolled and unhindered ambitions that causes them to forsake accountability, for the desperate attempt to make a reality out of a delusional epiphany. Since through uncontrolled ambition, a person becomes delusional, it is then through such idealistic actions that a person merely reveals human flaw.

Upon the notion of inability, there is the stance for where resources are met, through where the mind stores them. By a person unable to be responsible is then to comprehend that their uncontrolled spending of resources is to misunderstand what is limited of chaos, out of disregard for order of the heart. If the heart is ordered, then it is not broken to express the flaws of humanity. Humans are always mistaken because it is of humanity, itself, that is represented as a mistake. Were one to speak of themselves to love as a mistake, then they’ve yet to comprehend that it is always through trust, not of love, that causes such a person to error themselves and to reveal flaw.

We can be shameless when we blindly trust, being for resources spent of the mind. Though, we cannot at all be shameless through blind love, that to the heart, is where holds its residence. This depiction of the heart is all by what can be broken, being in relation to human emotions that are the sole source behind all mistakes. A person to make a mistake was through emotions, and nothing more.

Upon all mistakes, it is to be argued that when society is in disarray and unordered, it had always been through the individual’s lack of understanding to the self, as their trust had been gifted to others too readily. Would trust then, as its gift for another, be in comparison to the prior notion of believing freedom is meant to be the same? As a gift, though if freedom and trust are said to be gifted, then it is where we place ourselves, or our fragilities, that we become imprisoned without awareness for personal responsibility.

It is the responsible self who is most willing to comprehend order, as it is its opposite, being of chaos, that represents the dishonest and untruthful self. In being responsible, admittance to the committed mistake is the first step on the path towards reconciliation. Nothing else reveals itself as more dishonest than the one keeping themselves incarcerated, whether within the literal prison or the mental one. Due to the repeated offender’s wish to forgo responsibility, it becomes identified as the repetition of a mistake. Repeated mistakes are like mass production, by itself believed to be perfect in design, though inevitably flawed. Such a perception for what is deemed to be perfect is just as the mentality of the dishonest, irresponsible person who is unable to comprehend the meaning of a mistake. It is that it will be repeated, or mass produced, if irresponsibility resonates with the person of such a nature through sheer negligence, as they mean to expose themselves to the spending for more flawed designs.

The designs for what are flawed is continually by the touch of human hands, marking our creations as never perfect. As perfection would fall alongside omniscience, then nothing more would be learned, especially of what has been created as a mistake.

Maintenance and preservation are upon the foundations to what reveals itself as objective order, being to the individual who has comprehended the self only ever through perceiving incapability. The flaw of a human is how a lesson is learned. Were imperfection not to be of the human, then no mistakes would ever be made. From this, no education would be wrought from the mistake not meant to be repeated. Though, a factory would repeat perceived-as-perfect designs, because what is beautiful, or truthful, or imperfect is inevitably human, while what is perfect is either dehumanizing or represents death. Then, to the order for what can be maintained and preserved, makes what is not repeated kept the same. To that sameness in knowledge for how wisdom is granted, for it to be passed along in words that represent the objectivism within the notion of human error.

This maintenance and preservation of wisdom is of its sameness to what has already been learned. Wisdom is not subjective, when its simplicity such as to not put flesh near the flame is to know one might be only ignorant for the experience of this. If personal experience is what proves, then let it be so for the person who disbelieves in another’s warnings or wisdom.

For order to be comprehended through a singular relation, it would then have a similarity to Justice. To this reference, Justice can be defined in the same manner as order would be, through the wisdom that blossoms from the one who has learned to be responsible or has just simply been educated. Then, one cannot connect subjectivity to wisdom, nor to the responsibility that would stem towards consequence from one’s mistakes through their freedom. To be subjective about order, or being responsible, or of wisdom, is to remain ignorant by never learning from choices. As choice relates itself to freedom, then so is the subjective self all about the decision. Though, to the limitations for freedom, is then to the same limits that relate to human imperfection, pertaining then to all flaws that comes from choice to consequence.

If it is order that compares itself with Justice, then it is the latter that never holds a comparison to subjectivist thinking. It is since no mistake, by this logic, could be subjective without questioning the imperfect person of their committed action. Since no action, as a mistake, is ever one without it being already subjected on its own, then further question to it would extend the division that resonates with a lack of order.

While Vengeance is the place of disorder, then through Justice comes order. Upon order, that through a person’s comprehended mistake they have caused, out of freedom to choose, brings about the consequences that responsibility would be required to mend. Imperfect humans learn, and improve, through their mistakes. It is freedom that encompasses choices, while no person is ever responsible with their decisions. Instead, a person is responsible for the consequences to their decision because no perfect choice has ever existed. To justify the mistake, perhaps to excuse the flaws behind it, is to be against order and Justice by how reason certifies itself.

Reason is the essence of excuse. To form reason, is to wriggle oneself out of being responsible. Reason is proven here as the core of escapism, same as a criminal during a period of interrogation might attempt to lie or cheat themselves out of being accountable for their actions.

It is never for the sake of Justice, bound up together with the coldness of logic, that compassion should be given to a criminal. Such is the risk, with those who would most certainly take advantage of offered compassion for their selfish benefit. Offering compassion to one who has not learned yet to be responsible, is the same as gifting freedom. Gifting freedom, or to offer compassion to a criminal is no different from breaking an incarcerated individual out of prison.

Once responsibility is learned for the future benefit of the once-ignorant person, order is maintained so long as this individual does not betray anyone’s current trust to their continued betterment.

Since it is by human error and incapability that a person will admit to being flawed and imperfect, then to all comprehension for the self is by way of knowing order cannot be subjective. To believe in such is to divide among the literal meaning of order, with such a definition that never pertains to division, though to togetherness.

Philosophy – “Why Society is Never to Blame” – 4/12/2021

“The collective organization is only ever aware of its individualized imperfections. In denial, however, the idea of ‘change’ comes to the mind of one who stands for collectivism by whatever is altered. It is the denial of what should be trusted. Through collective change, individualized imperfection is ignored for the sake of a perfected group.”
– Modern Romanticism

Even then, to be stronger when together, does not equal perfection. Perfection is not a discernable thing to human eyes. As humans perceive only for what they trust, comes either with the ease of it or its very hardship to wishing to break from stagnating comfort. It should then be said that we are imperfect, when together. So imperfect, because the station of togetherness remarks vulnerability.

Humans, when together, when in cooperation upon mutual issues, can form solutions through their vulnerability. It is then to say that we are not stronger when together, though weaker. We are necessarily weaker, so that when the collective breaks to form individualized persons, they are better able to comprehend their individuality.

Why should society be to blame, when it is always the individual who can be stubborn enough to never break within the collective?

If all the collective knows of is to be the army of brute force, then that is where individualism is rejected. Coming together, even as one, must mean to be more frail than ever.

Even in love, coming together ‘as one’ can result in a broken heart. One must consign themselves to the necessity of that brokenness, if never for the forfeit of such togetherness. It is around those whom we trust, where we are willing to break. We do not break those we trust. Instead, we willingly break ourselves, for the sake of our betterment. Individualized betterment, for that is how a person can better trust what is before themselves.

Philosophy – “No Point to Blaming Society” – 2/16/2021

“In this world, the denial of involvement is the confession of ignorance, not innocence.”
– Modern Romanticism

Those who deny their fate, are those who further construct their Hell.

What point to blame the world, if not in the denial that our surroundings have been made by our own hands? If we blame the world, then we do blame ourselves.

There are those who say that the world is to blame for an issue they have caused. Yet, these people, to the world, look ignorant. Do we know these people? Or, do we only need to know that they believe themselves innocent? If such people believe themselves as innocent, then it is always to the world, that they look ignorant. To believe oneself lacks involvement in their troubles, is the same to believe oneself as innocent. Though, in truth, such a person is only ever unaware of what is truly the fault. They have renounced themselves to ignorance.

To be unaware, or to be ignorant, especially with the embrace of such, has much to do with the cowardice for which is the reason people would blame the world. If a person blames the world, then they’ve renounced their freedom. They must adore being their own slave, with their mind as their master, if they believe they possess no control. It is only ever the definition of freedom, in the firm belief one has a true escape.

It is not to escape out of one’s issues, so much as it is mere cowardice in how a person flees, when this individual does not confront their errors. To be responsible, is to believe one is not innocent, though aware. We merely comprehend that we had much to do with the outcome. However, we are cowards when we believe we can run from an error, and then allow the world to clean up what we’ve caused.

Blaming the world is to blame ourselves, because the world is us. We thus have no choice, but to blame ourselves. That is because in the act of being wholly responsible, we are faced with having no choice. In being responsible, there is no choice, as there is no more a reason nor an excuse to escape.

It is for all these reasons that when a person is not responsible, that when they blame the world, they become embittered. Such bitterness has only ever resulted from a festering of the true fault, within that individual. They worsen what they believe they can escape from. And, when they reject themselves, they embrace nothing but continued ignorance and blindness.

Philosophy – “Why Politics will not Change” – 12/23/2020

“Politics is the world of its own. It’s a bath one steps into, and does not make their mark in it, though instead becomes embraced by a world that controls the bather.”
– Modern Romanticism

The term “functional” has its meaning in nothing universal. Flaws are common among functions, making form the ultimate understanding to the flawless, loved figure. For its protection, objective ugliness cannot be given it. Ugliness cannot be given protection, unless we simply care for the staying of flaws, not our love being led into them. For if love, being something so flawless, were to match the flaws of another, they’d too understand the wrongs of themselves. The flawed one would understand that another’s empathy has dug deep, to the imminent point of their arrival into a flawless world they’ve never witnessed.

What is functional, versus what is given form, is for why politics is unchangeable by its very nature within such “form”. Politics is a form, and it is one that embraces the mere “function” of a human. Such means that politics cannot be changed by mere function, making a person unable to control what makes the political world.

Can a person control their own anger, through their own grief? Is it themselves using their anger, as the weapon? Being something so embedded in mentality, it is to be believed that the anger is what controls the person feeling it.

To what is so unchangeable, so embedded in its own continually protected structure, makes up politics in being unable to alter. For a person to believe something out of politics, made for society’s function, can be just as perfect and unchangeable, are always to be wrong. As politics is unchangeable, though comprised of humans, is the same for why it is said God created Man, being still an imperfect Creation. That is, everything out of perfection comes imperfection, making what politics breeds for society to benefit from, a mere flawed creation.

Can one truly believe a politician can create a system that is universally functional? It would be the same to say that life, itself, is universally functional, when it is not. Life would not be universally functional, for people do not behave, nor operate, the same. Count how many people possess all four limbs. Then, count how many people possess only two or three limbs. Then, count how many people possess all four limbs, though two are non-operational. Life, itself, cannot be universally functional. And, if ever were the day to be the case, then our creators would no longer be the perfect source to which allows in, more imperfect beings.

Philosophy – “Societal Breeding of Categorical Minorities” – 12/21/2020

“One’s empathy become crossed out in the sand, as one’s desire to aid becomes extinguished, all in the most automatic fashion, soon when they believe people should be categorized.”
– Modern Romanticism

Categories of people? Groups of people? Segregation of minorities into lists of each? All of this is against the empathy that rules what is understood as unity.

It is in the categorization of people, that those groups become certain armies, given special training for special circumstances. Empathy become omitted, by that categorizing person’s deliberate intent to stray away from understanding all as equal. By comprehending certain people to be categorized, such makes the categorizing one as someone who believes in the need to know what is expendable. It is the same as understanding what is written upon a restaurant menu. A restaurant menu can depict what is suitable for one’s hunger, versus what is bound to make one incredibly full. In comparison, such categories on a menu, upon when people are the same, makes such persons treated as expendable.

How can it not, when we look at certain minorities for how they appear in the world, versus what they are able to do? There are those who categorize them, for the sole sake of them “looking good” in the world, or appearing to be “assimilated” with everyone else. However, when empathy becomes involved in that minority’s own profession, that is special treatment. Though, when empathy becomes involved in the friendly manner, outside of the professional world, it becomes utterly appropriate.

Those who categorize human beings, are not seeking unity. They are seeking division, being the opposite. This is because when one only considers how a person appears within those groups, such aligns itself with how a person can either be living or dead. To be someone of a group, would pertain itself directly to division, due to that “being divided” is a state by which a person is no longer ordered. Appearance would relate to division, as beauty is able to decay, while action will be what relates to unity.

And, to remind oneself that appearances would relate to division, is easily comparable to the menu that displays the lists of available options. One, who is categorized, is an expendable, is never loved, is never accepted. They are merely the new introduction, as something tolerated.

Quote – “The Better of Two Extremes” – Pt. 2 – 8/13/2020

“It seems to be when something inherently good is met with its opposite, being something inherently bad, there comes the two extremes in a never-ending war.
By this, how would honesty become an extreme, if deception, itself, did not come along to claim power?
How would anything of an inherently good nature, such as justice or correctness, need to be an extreme in telling what they stand for, if society and politics did not interfere?
All extremes of a duality become bad, though only when the inherently bad comes along in the attempt to take the place of the inherently good.”
– Modern Romanticism