Philosophy – “Why a Relationship is a Two-Way Street” – 8/12/2022

“Without mutual trust, there can only be mutual collapse.”

– Modern Romanticism

No one can be called innocent, with any legitimate backing to its declaration, without misunderstanding one notion: no innocence exists, though what does are experiences yet to be turned to one’s own knowledge. In a relationship, love shows itself to be an ideal. When we idealize our partner, we believe them perfect. If we state that our love shows higher status over such mutual imperfections requiring mutual trust, we believe that our love must label our partner as wholly capable of resolving conflicts. Whereas we state of ourselves that our incapabilities are ample enough that trust to ourselves and perhaps trust to all manner of strength in this relationship has remained absent.

No relationship has structure, without mutual trust. For what else can trust be defined as, if not for structure? When a relationship has signs of conflict, thus testing structure, this crisis allows both parties, in that relationship, to reveal their strengths and weaknesses. If one side has held little trust for this other person, their weakness has come into play. Their weakness, being their inability to trust this other person who has been trusting to them, has revealed here that such an untrusting person has not built themselves within this relationship. Whatever other conflicts that had arisen were viewed by this untrusting person as meant to be resolved only by their partner. This untrusting person has never considered this relationship as a part of their own strength. To be weak, in such a sense when trust compares to structure, means that such a trait becomes exhibited when their inability to handle their separate role to solve this crisis gets proven through their unwilling behavior. As trust compares to structure, a crisis will test strength and weakness. As crisis passes through greater understanding of weakness, strength gets fortified when this relationship can rebuild from whatever conflict had weakened its structure. As future conflict becomes experienced, further testing to what had been rebuilt can certify both parties in their newfound strength to better handle such future conflict while giving separate light to other undiscovered weaknesses.

All people have weaknesses. Imperfections. Without noticing them, another person will. That other person might exploit them, if there might be a manipulative relationship. To believe that in one’s supposed innocence, this manipulative person had ever been a monster will mean that this manipulated person has never seen how far they have strayed. Strayed from what? Strayed from knowing themselves. Comprehending oneself as perfect does not mean anything. Comprehending oneself will mean to know one’s own limitations, through a recognition of one’s weaknesses as life will inevitably grant a person these tests against their resolve.

Through relationship struggles, consideration of all manner of realistic aspects, being capabilities and incapabilities between persons, extends from a simply human understanding. People comprehend each other, when also knowing themselves. In knowing another person, we have because we understand that their strengths and weaknesses might be similar to ours. In all a person can do that gets realizes as possible, all impossible dreams are either viewed with discordant doubt or a blooming positivity. In that, love places itself to be a relationship’s foundation, where trust builds upon that as this relationship’s structure. When people fall back to love, they fall back to their partner. When people fall back to trust, they fall back to what has unified both, being their mutual trust. Knowing another person will mean to know ourselves, creating an empathetic bond that situates itself on understanding imperfections or weaknesses of both that person and their partner. Trusting another or even oneself will mean to consider what weaknesses have hindered strengthening such trust, in that relationship. In that trust, confiding to one’s partner will be admitting one’s weaknesses. Admitting where one can be strong will mean to prove that one’s role in handling their part in such conflict can be accomplished.

Without mutual trust, causing its collapse, all that will be left are those foundations, being love. Pain becomes felt when a person who had been trusted to handle all conflicting matters has such structure come down upon them, in its collapse. They bare this heaviness from such collapse, identifying this pain as a loss of what had been overbearingly trusted to keep upright.

Quote – “Why Trust is more Human than Love” – 9/23/2021

“Humans break; love does not. For trust’s sake, it can be betrayed, though the one reason we feel that pain is because we thought different. We idealized the other, saw them perfect, though reality kept them as not perfect for us. We feel that pain, because we still love them. We still portray them as something better than a betrayer. Trust is human, because trust can die, though love does not. In what means the most to ourselves, that becomes the memories tied to love. The pain remains to remind us that this person was not our happiness, because as the agony stays, the wound never fully heals.”

– Modern Romanticism

Love Quote – “Why Unrequited Love does not Exist” – 6/18/2021

“Not so much to how we might love is the way in which humans can be frail. We are instead fragile because we trust. Some trust, with too much ease. These are the sorts to want the immediate comfort and consolation. One-sided trust is blind. Since love is blind, then why would trust ever be the same? One commits the error, to potentially become betrayed. There is advantage and gain, in such a scenario. There is lust, and no love.”

– Modern Romanticism

Philosophy – “The Connection between Trust and Education” – 5/13/2021

“It is more the human effort to trust, than to love, being what makes us such fragile and imperfect creatures. To trust, and then, to be betrayed on it, forces us to learn from our mistakes, or otherwise repeat them.”

– Modern Romanticism

Same as history repeats itself, mistakes too.

There are those who express what it means to love, though not so much on what it means to trust. It would welcome more of an earthly response for the latter, because it compares better to human nature. To learn, is to do so for what one mistakenly trusted. Trust is a better comparison to the human side, all due to what the “mistake” represents. That, to make one, is to reveal ourselves as imperfect. Then, to learn from it, means that we were never perfect enough to not have made that mistake, in the first place.

It is love that is divorced from emotion, because such is the perfect force. It is then that trust, being what makes a person learn, presents us as contrasted from God who’d be omniscient. If God is omniscient, then He is perfect. It is because perfection will always relate to the needlessness of education. Though, if humans need to learn, then it is all because of our emotions, being what make us imperfect and bound to make mistakes. Through our emotions, we error and are errored, and from our mistakes, we learn.

To believe oneself, or another person, is “perfect the way they are” might mean, in the most literal sense, that they no longer need to be educated.

We are yet loyal to those we trust, for this is the same as to make oneself their protector. Again, this is to make oneself imperfect, and also, vulnerable. As a protector, one volunteers to take perhaps the fall, the blame, or the hit for another person. Though, the protector is not indestructible, all due to their vulnerability. A protector is not perfect, because their greatest weakness would be to believe nothing can conquer them.

As it would be that protector’s greatest weakness, since those they wish to guard are the focus for what should never become conquered. Since it is this, it is never themselves who they are protecting.

Though, to learn, would mean to be more fragile by way of a potential betrayal for that trust. It is then to learn, that from such a mistake in being loyal and trusting to a wrong person or even a source of information, grants the greatest lesson upon them. That, to not repeat the same mistake, brings about the connection between trust and education. If the mistake has been repeated, then nothing has been learned.

It can be safe to admit that one had “mistrusted”, at the point of betrayal, only ever after the traitorous deed had been struck.

Education is at the center of trust, especially upon what is specifically trusted. We’ll believe we should love through unconditional means, though it is instead that human trust with those conditions attached. It is especially after past errors were learned from, that such conditions are placed. It is then that those conditions are there to protect the self from further harm.

It is the case that we can love all people, equally. Though, it is never the case that we should trust everyone, with the same equal measure, without first admitting that we should also be ignorant. As in, ignorant of those we trust, and the same for ourselves.

Quote – “How Every Problem is Simple” – 4/7/2021

“The greatest lie in the world is to believe everything is not as simple as one can describe it. A problem only becomes more problematic when it is believed to be more complex than it is. Yet, why would certain people want to view things through complexity? It can only be because they are comforted by their lies, in the belief that every problem in the world is infinitely complex. How do problems get solved, when we are never knowledgeable in terms of the truth?”

– Modern Romanticism

Philosophy – “Why Both Atheism and Christianity should Agree to the Non-Existence of God” – 4/6/2021

“Non-existence has only a place for everything trustworthy. Therefore, wouldn’t we hold trust for what is certain, being of the past, being of what is both dead and not?”

– Modern Romanticism

If God is said to be of love, then He’d have a relation only to the past, not the future. We stride forth to uncertainty. While the future is full of fear, the past is full of love. While the future is full of doubt, the past is full of wisdom.

We’ll hear the Atheist speak of the “obsolete” nature of religion. We’ll hear the same from their mouths on the “deadness” of God. However, has that not always been the case? Among what is dead, though is also not, of the past where we comprehend everything as certain, this is how we understand eternity. If God is said to be of love, then He’ll be in direct relation to the past, being of what is said to no longer exist. If Atheism wishes to bury religion and its teachings under the dust of cathedrals, it will remain alive.

God cannot die, nor can love. The past cannot die, because even if religion, itself, is deemed as obsolete, our comprehension for what is non-existent is what remains alive. As the Atheist will deny the existence of God, it becomes the appropriate thing for what the Christian can also understand. Denial of the past is only half of the equation. It is both denial and acceptance that makes faith.

We doubt what we cannot see, or of what others have said to be alive. When Christ died, people believed it. When Christ rose, people denied it.

The past, of what we remember, being of all we love, shows us purpose. It is always because we recall that we have one. If God is said to show all their own purpose, then He is of the past. He would be the sun that warms our backs, though we’ll cast a shadow forward which is the fear within the future.

What makes up the meaning of each individual life, if not what is dead, though is not? Among all those who have sacrificed, such as of Christ upon the cross, the dead are remembered for their lives that we might find meaning to keep moving. We gather strength from the past, learn lessons from our previous errors, all in the recollection of what is determined as dead and also not. That makes up the faith, that the future is bettered away from fear.

Metaphysics – “Why Love and Trust are Opposites” – 3/23/2021

“Always wander with your eyes facing forward, as your mind looks back.”

– Modern Romanticism

Love and trust. Dualities of sorts, though only ever the latter works for the former. It can be said of trust that it is something in which we are aware to. We cannot be trusting of all things, for that would make it just as blind as love. There are those who blindly trust, though this is what causes ruin among companionship. If we blindly trust another mortal human, then betrayal is certain. Trust is only for the convenience of a person, as it is not a necessity. As in, we do not trust what we need, such as food, water, or shelter. Such things we need, so there is no necessity for it to be aligned with trust. Though, among other people being given trust in the intent of revealing our fragility about them, is always the granting of wisdom upon realizing what is good or not.

If we better ourselves in where we have been faulted, then it is to say that when we make mistakes in trust, we later become constructed. We are criticized for having done wrong. The only legitimate sort of person able to criticize someone for fault is one who has foreseen the negative consequences arriving. As in, they have been within the same experience of those they are perhaps offering a warning. When criticism arrives, it is legitimate in their allowance to the blindly trusting individual to find out for themselves what mistakes could be made.

To trust, or to love, there is no mistakes for the latter. We do not fault ourselves, through love, because only trust can open a person up. Love partakes itself to memories. We comprehend of the universe through the lens of science that there is no “direction” in outer space. The Atheist would be one to believe God has no existence, because he or she cannot “see” Him. Then, to believe that out of trust we could perceive where we can be faulted, would not ever make God before us. Even if we were to turn around, our “mind’s eye” would simply shift itself on its opposite. For as humans exist in the universe, there is no direction, for ourselves, besides to another who we can trust for their practical and physical properties. That is, we cannot be in the “embrace of God”, unless we fall. And, we cannot be in the embrace of a human, unless we run to them.

There is no direction in the universe or outer space, because it is trust that signifies where we must look with physical eyes. Though, by our mind being able to hold memories for what is behind, in the past, makes makes such a direction appear as a “dead end”. That is, the past represents the “nowhere” we could return to, if our aim is to forfeit the act of moving forward. If we do run forward to the arms of someone we can recognize, then it was only because we did not forfeit the future. It is towards a direction that we move towards what we recognize. Then, it is in the understanding of having no direction, that we comprehend what the past symbolizes. The past is merely the symbol to having nowhere to go, because we have renounced our desire to move forward or “move on”.

If there is no mistakes through love, then it is correct to believe God as perfect. Is the Atheist who says the words, “God is dead” totally wrong? If it is the past that references death, being a place a human can only ever cannot physically return to without forfeiture of what should be recognized, then it would indeed makes everything that is absolute wholly important to the individual. If all futures are so uncertain to the human eyes, and never the mind, then the direction onward can make us feel fear. Though, to hold trust in the past, to God, to all that is certain, is the belief of knowing what is true. The past, or God, or faith, offers strength. If God’s word is referenced as the truth, then everything “truthful” would belong to death. Everything truthful, being as its absolute in the past, would pertain to what cannot return, unless it comes upon the individual as a “revelation”. As in, all we could fully trust, is in what we can remember. We can return wisdom to ourselves from past experiences, as it situates itself among all we can trust. Our “revelation” would then be a “second coming” of such wisdom, that does not ever cause a person to commit the same mistake twice.

Love and trust, being opposites. The latter is with the awareness for the future, though either in accordance to what we’ve previously experienced, or the blindness for which trust can stand. However, if we have not learned from the past, then we merely repeat our mistakes. In the repetition to our faults, we bring about deceit, will lead others to their doom, in the failed leadership we’ve displayed of submitting to our fear of the future. It was because others blindly trusted our capabilities of our physical and practical properties, never comprehending that they have a mind of their own.

Quote – “If Fear is what Divides…” – 2/17/2021

“If fear divides a people, resulting in the ignorance that, as well, outcomes in the prejudice that leaves others disconnected, then why not convert such a fear of people to a fear for people? Instead of fearing others, we should fear for others. Instead of dividing ourselves out of fear, we should close gaps because through concern, we love and care.”

– Modern Romanticism

Philosophy – “Why Criticism is not the same as Hatred” – 2/17/2021

“Unlike hatred, criticism is its opposite. Criticism constructs. It lifts, just the same as love.”

– Modern Romanticism

To reject criticism is to reject the friend. It is to reject the one who doesn’t find you perfect. Is not the essence of friendships to show vulnerability around the other? Is this not the same as trusting who you claim to be your friend?

It is fear that leads to division, not hatred. Hatred only comes out of the need to fill a void, where once was love.

As it is fear that leads to division, then we should comprehend that every emotion, so fleeting to ourselves, reveals our imperfection and insecurities enough to require friendship. As in, why do we yearn for ourselves to be divided, ever-more? “Division” is an open wound, a parting between people, so to speak. Our divisions are the wounds between us. Division is the gap between people. We bleed, only because we have no one to cry with.

Criticism will lift, because it knows a person’s flaws. Hatred, however, will seek to destroy. Genuine hate is never wide-spread. It is never so broad, as fear. Though, it could be appropriate to mention that should a person be able to love all others, then they can also fear for every one of those people. The division, through fear, would then come when people do not wish to become involved. Thus, there is the ignorance for which is a relation to fear.

It is a confusion, when people tend to misunderstand how they have become divided. It was never out of hate, as it was always due to fear. People are ignorant of those they do not know, due to them being fearful of truth.

If we ever hate, then we must have once known how to love. That is factual. It cannot be hatred that divides, because genuine hate is always born out of an understanding to someone. It was the betrayal that caused the part between two persons, though hatred bred itself out of knowledge for what a person never knew of who they once trusted and loved. That is, some side of the betrayer was revealed, and thus, hatred was born, filling the void where once was sheer love.

It is to criticism that knows weakness, though seeks to repair it. It is criticism, that between soulful friends, know each other’s strengths and weaknesses. The critical friend will simply point out those flaws, to next say to the troubled one that their strength is enough to mend them. This is to say that a critical friend will not do the work for their troubled companion, though will simply show them the path.

Philosophy – “The Differences Between Love and Trust” – 2/3/2021

“What comes first? Love or trust? It must be love, because we cannot trust everyone.”

– Modern Romanticism

Does one know why the person commits suicide? It is objectively an act of self-punishment. Since it is that both love and death are gifts, due to that life cannot see when either will arrive, the person who commits suicide has chosen death for what punishment is, as opposite from forgiveness. A depressed person cannot understand how to forgive themselves. Were they to figure out how to do so, they’d be cleansed of every fault they know of themselves, to begin, once again. Life can predict its own self, being life. Though, life cannot predict love nor death. As in, life can perhaps predict when someone else will arrive, though it cannot predict the things no one knows when will come. It would be that the person who decides to end their life by their hand, knows themselves, comprehends what their preference is, as they need no one else to gift that punishment.

We state to a person, whom we know, that we will not “spoil the surprise” of their birthday present. That is a sameness to the reference of “prediction” for life knowing life, and then of one person knowing another for their preferences. Though, being of everything related to a gift, is always in what is not expected to arrive. Though, we are comforted by how we know, ourselves, that the gifting person knows us, to know our preferences. As another example by way of the preference, two lovers, during a session of sexual intercourse, comprehend easily what satisfies the other. These lovers know each other. They have learned the other’s flaws, to have accepted them. They have learned what brings pleasure, to have introduced it.

Trust is built. Same with skills. Same with respect. Knowledge is built or accumulated, because “to know” resides upon “to trust” in the same manner. The way humans are limited is not by how they love nor by how they die, though by how they live. Preciousness unto life is a sure mentality that protects those who are deemed by love to not die, as we shield the beating heart. However, through our naivety, comfort enables us to believe that a person, whom we love, cannot ever die. We forget that they might die, due to the comfort that love brings. It is through love that protects life, while it is through death that punishes the life that had no protection nor a way to forgive what was a fault.

We cling to who loves us, because of how they know us, and because they have seen our faults. Any person who has trusted another, cannot forget what they have seen. For of love, and then of trust, there is nothing more incapable to drain from our memory, than of who was once nothing in our lives. Of them becoming a form of significance, was only because we have seen what would not be revealed to anyone else. Of the things seen, are of faults now trusted within our memory bank to never misuse. It is because they were presumably placed in proper hands. If love came from nowhere, then it is the same for the earth we stand upon. What builds, is trust, is the life as the support that keeps another standing upon that earth, to keep walking. To keep their life moving forward, is only ever in the representation for who knows another, comprehends that faults cannot be what brings death of its unending gift of punishment.

Psychology – “Why there is no Such Thing as Conditional Love” – 2/2/2021

“If conditional love refers to love with boundaries, then conditional trust should simply be boundaries.”

– Modern Romanticism

The most sensitive of subjects for which is meant to reflect an individual’s greatest of weaknesses, is not love, though trust. Trust relates directly to all we fear, up to who we are sexually intimate with. For to ask a person who they can trust, is the same as asking who they’ve ever had sexual intercourse with. Such questions are deeply rooted in “what is personal” of that individual, as those questions will most always be received with not an answer, though another question. As in, the reception might be, “Why would you ask me that?” to translate to, “What do you plan on doing with that information?”

No one can love a person more than another. That is an impossibility for humans to consider. We confuse such terms, as “love” with “trust”, through an example of stating the two words together, “Unconditional love”. There is no such thing as either conditional or unconditional love. It simply makes no sense to have either two words together with “love”. In fact, it would make more sense to freely be unconditional about love, though that is the same as to simply love.

If we set conditions, then it is about trust. We always trust, with conditions, especially out of the reason of not trusting completely. Out of love, we can give it, of its entirety. It is simply due to that love is not an emotion, though is simply king above all. It is a force that does not resemble emotions, because its perfection is not among whatever makes us imperfect. If emotions make us imperfect, cause us to make mistakes, then love cannot be the same. It is instead out of who we trust, that we take risks, and learn from our made mistakes.

Trust allows us to take a risk, to not bar ourselves among those conditions within something called a “comfort zone”. Out of trust, not love, we impose fear upon ourselves. We allow those enclosed walls for which have tightened us to a small realm, to break. Then, we build new walls.

Fear is necessary to feel for what we do not understand of something so unknown, in contrast from what we do know. Then, it is never about love towards who or what is unknown, though to the trust for either its threat upon us or its peaceful and controlled self.

Once again, we cannot love anyone than we do, upon one person or another. We can, however, place conditions in where we hold such trust, out of both regard for past experience, and regard for future survival.

Quote – “Why Trust is a Human’s Greatest Weakness” – 2/1/2021

“All humans can love equally. There is no difference between the love for one being to another. As in, there is no way someone can love a person more than another. That is not love, that they refer to. That one who claims to love someone more than another, has instead referenced trust. We can love all, in equal terms, just because we can. However, we cannot trust everyone, in equal terms. It is due to trust needing to be built.

Of love and trust, relating to the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, of the feet to the mind, and then even of the past to the memories carted towards the future. We have a foundation of love. We have a foundation of death.

We have the trust that is built, like walls. We set up barricades against what we do not trust. We protect what we do. Love makes us perfect, in the remembrance of what we simply hold onto. Trust makes us imperfect, by any wall showing a crack that could make the person, themselves, break.”

– Modern Romanticism