The Pedestal:
People need to make their own values, principles, goals instead of worshipping others as superior individuals. As we rely on external moralities instead of our own principles and ego, society collapses when its rot is exposed. When people we idolize as a pillar of society commit sins, followers are hit with betrayal, not grief or disappointment, a crucial distinction that separates genuine grief or disappointment of what could've been and the anger of the betrayal of their brand, illusions, and delusions. All people are made up of good and evil. How can we only glamorize the specific aspects of an individual that are only beneficial to us and our illusion of who they are? How could we possibly only choose to see them for a sliver of who they truly are? This is a rejection of their humanity and a depravation of their dignity as a complex individual.
The Hypocrisy Behind 'Humanity':
It's okay to be a bystander. Where is the line? Must one jump in at every possible moment? What does it mean to be human? Ambition is human. Pride is human. Ego is human (and very important). Superficial morality idolize the symbols of 'good' as the pinnacle of humaneness. No. People may even have egotistical morality. Even the least principled of people are incapable of complete 100% selfishness or 100% altruism. Humans are not binary.
The ones who accept their immorality are the only humans. People say to be humane is to be empathetic and kind. What about anger, ego, grief, passion, why is one more humane than the other? Why is being kind more humane than being cruel? Why? Because one benefits the herd, the other benefits the individual. Who's to say that the 'ugly' and 'beautiful' sides of humanity are completely separate? Is there not pride in humility, possessiveness in love, cruelty in mercy?
'All humans seek to be part of something greater than themselves. They cannot live without blind obedience.' - Someone wise
Filling a Bucket:
Pursuing a relationship for fulfilling loneliness itself, is pathetic. We will always be lonely and attempting to fill that void is wrong. It's not to fulfill a hole, it should be for connection itself.
External rewards are a means to an end—not the end itself. Once an individual places their own worth on awards and materialistic achievements, they view others the same way. To be kind to others, is to forgive those flaws in ourself. We are all mirrors of the same human struggles. To see that pain and emotion as an individual soul is kindness and respect. Not pity or sympathy.
That's why people fear solitude, ostracism, and being left behind. They fear facing their own thoughts and truly thinking (to never be alone is to have no independent thought) so they assimilate to the crowd, shaping their instincts following the herd.
The Fallacy of Words:
The creation of language itself is an interpretation of the external. Therefore, everything is truly subjective. (Don't say 'Nothing is objective.' That's a logical fallacy). In order for an event to be observed, by definition, an entity is required, and if there's an observant entity, it's affected by its own perceptions of sight, hearing, etc. which makes its interpretations subjective and unique to them.
The Ego and the Instinct of Disgust:
Social Media. When I would watch TikTok or YouTube, I would watch the videos of people, especially girls, who I was convinced had a better life than me. I watched out of the fear of missing out and a deeply ingrained inferiority complex and bitter envy. But how did I feel afterwards? I felt weak. I felt pathetic. My pride was deeply wounded. I felt extreme anger and disgust at myself for internally subjugating myself for others out of jealousy and resentment. It was deeply pathetic and I felt complete revulsion. This wounded ego is why I stopped watching those things. All things have to start from within.
The Drive:
I came across an interesting quote: 'What's the difference between a king and his horse? If their form, ability, and power are exactly the same, why is it that one becomes the king and leads them into battle, while the other becomes the horse and carries the king? So what's the characteristic that distinguishes these two beings? There's only one answer! INSTINCT! In fact, it forms the very essence of our being, deep within our body lies the honed instinct to dominate, and slaughter our enemies! My friend, you don'thave that! I refuse to play horse to a king who's weaker than me. If you aren't willing to assert your strength and retain the crown, then I'll destroy you, which means. I'll be king.' - W
I disagree with W. He's fueled by power and exploding forwards. But he assumes that there are 'strong' and 'weak' priorities. That is nonexistent and internal bias. Being the king is a matter of how far you're willing to go for those priorities (the will), not the priority itself or intelligence or talent. Additionally, perhaps his will happens to align with his instinct by chance, or perhaps, his will was actually a product of his instinct as a Hollow.
Will is a choice. It's the power of 'I won't' vs 'I can't' and choosing the former. Your nature is irrelevant. What matters is that you have a priority, and you have decided that you are willing to break yourself and everything around you to achieve it.
Will should not be a byproduct of instinct, instinct should be a tool honed for the will. That brings up the question: Does the will, once you find a priority, naturally develop an instinct? This is an engineered instinct. When you choose a priority (being a Sovereign/Architect) and you commit to the price, you are rewiring the brain. At first, you have to consciously exert the Will to stay on track. But as you pay the price over and over, that action becomes an ingrained instinct.
Life is never stagnant. The passage of time itself guarantees change: entropy. If change will occur anyways, why not shift the tide to your own drive?