In an analysis of the news, Russia said it was scary that Russia would gradually become hostile to the West from the side of the people, but that was the most worrying thing, and if that happened, President Putin would somehow dismiss or give up. The good thing is that it doesn't end there. Inevitably it means Russia's complete isolation. It wants to avoid the international community.

If only the war between Russia and Ukraine needs to be contained, the other issues have nothing to do with it. Although China cannot express its complete hostility to Russia, it cannot express its full support for Russia. In that case, Russia's isolation is inevitable, but China will not keep pace with Europe and the United States. In the end, the conflict between Europe, the United States and Russia becomes clear. Return to the beginning.
(At the matter of fact, in fact, silent keeping countries are all never to advocate both sides)

At that time, what has a good reputation is money, but it does not remain in history. However, if the reputation is bad at that time, even if it remains in history, he is unhappy. Therefore, in general, one's own happiness can be said to be a work at a completely different point from the pursuit of truth and the pursuit of pure art. However, when investing in the future by leaving it for a long time, it is necessary to ignore the profit at a certain point.
( Upper truth could be said around not only art, study of academism or happiness view or so but also nowadays' global poltics, economics, and financing reality)

Mar. 12th.    2022

At the matter of fact, recently I constantly have some persistently one idea like being assaulted by it.
That is subjective as adjective or subjectivity as noun and objective as adjective or objectiviy as noun are mutually very complicated in some unidentified relevance or kind of mechanism.

Though, also, one former article “Analytical philosophy and phenomenology” is very related with this articule theme.

First, we are apt to regard “objective” as what means very generally anybody could regard as the same or so generally universally seen so.

Nevertheless, actually that fact could be so just subjective idea, that thing could be clearized.

Because, orginally, being objective ought to be very rationally excluding any own subjective idea, though it could be so averaged idea, generally we can comprehend that term’s origin.

Nevertheless, actually, we accidentally know any objectivity is generalized and we all were previously imprinted to regard it so correct as just meaning objective.
However, if somebody could claim that its idea is seen at least to me, felt so somewhat gapped.

That impression or opinion must be replaced with the expression that objectivity is just what somebody or some gathered ones as unit could have decided to fix something in one name, then accidentally that could have been objective, but originally the thing as objective must never be nothing from the beginning.
Though, according to this quesionable impression or interpretation, objectivity is just because it’d have been fixed, we are unconsciously obligedly believe in as that’d be the truth, but truly that originally objective idea could never have been just illusion or fantasy, that idea could be generated so necessarily at this logical context.

In other words, at the matter of fact, otherwise, in fact, objectivity means really so only regurated and decided, e.g. water’s boiling point, but that could never be converted either from this moment on, probably parmanently, otherwise, another things as now anybody could never have any doubt or sleptical impression, but another time, in our future, someboday could have objection around that common sense, that kind of thing could be present, at least logical procedural interpretion.

Though, consequently at this debatable procedure or process, we’d be obliged to articulate or define that objectively means only for the present fixed idea, and subjectivity is not that fixed idea to anybody, though generally objectivity must not be always absolutely correct, nevertheless, possibly or otherwise, even objectively regarded idea could be overturn in another future for all us, though necessarily anything is at the matter of fact, truly subjective, but if we’d regalate it so, anything could be seen so disorderly, we could regard so, thereby for the time being, formally and offcially some idea could have been fixed as being objective.
And actually and truly substantially, anything is truly subjective or subjectively regarded, but if we admit all things so, again so confused and disorderly situation must come up to us, though objectivity is for the present, as what we can never doubt, offcially, regulately regarded to us, but truly really otherwise, absolutely or genuinely correct idea is that there’s nothing of absolutely objective nature or characterized thing, and really anything, everything must be subjective.

Nevertheless, if we admit it so honestly any term, words’ definition uses usage as language activity must have been confused, we all unconsciously suspend that debate, as taboo, in other words, that must be our arbitrariness. And at linguistics term, the first suggesting one was ❇Ferdinand de Saussure. And on the context of analytical philosophy, the first suggesting one as proposer or to say skeptically implying one was ✷Nelson Goodman.

If there could be omnipotent God’s view, there must have been nothing of any absolutely objective view nor idea, but once its truth could have been fixed, any social communication and activity could have been confused in disorder, anybody could have that idea, though expediently we as our human society has any sort of rule that to what anybody can feel some sensation should be red, blue, or so.

Though if analytical philosophy could be appropriately mobilized there, at the matter of fact, anything should be, or ought to be just subjective. Though substatially and essentially, “being objective” means for the present, why don’t we debate it in subjective regard, though why don’t we suspend, withhold, withdraw any another possibility should be soundly held back, for the present, let’s take it in moratorium. That our implicit consensus could be readied in society, so tacitly.

Thus, in terms of analytical philosophy, “being object” must mean the most definat subject, or subjectively regarded interpretation. Though any legally regarded common sense or any kind od rule generally are schemed or aimed and so far fixed as being correct, we expediently implicitly regard or withold infinte endless and futile dispute.

However, just with these referred data, at the matter of fact, objectivity is systamatic unnecessary fixation to privilege or so, though, objectivity’s universality as an idea could be bureaucratism, as one of the most persistent preoccupation or prejudice.

Thuogh, if we constantly debate this article mentioning thing, centainly any society could have been stumbled into deadlock or deadend.
Nevertheless, now what we are intrested in and have so strong concern is just Russian invasion to Ukraine, at the matter of fact, otherwise, the matter could have been overlooked or looked over daringly by us almost subconsciously, because that issue could have been debated, probably only never solved unifinite furuitless arguement or debate could be produced, necertheless, in fact, really at the matter of fact, we all have to address to that issue not only Russian and Ukraine, but also any other general citizen in world.

(If another idea could generate in my mind, I’d grapple with it again, but now that schedule is withheld)

Mar. 12th. 2022

Appendix; To this proposal, having objection is conservatism, and accepting is radicalism, for the time being, we could regard, but either to it, another opinion or objection could never be impossible to us, we’d say so either.

By the way, society thing could have been substance in which only concessive and been substance in which only concessive and compromising one could be generally

❇

✷

Simply, phenomenology must depend on objectivity. In other words, it intends to analyze totalized socially relevant human presence in philosophical view originally anybody inherently has in mind and through that analyzed outcome, our missioned mainly important subject could be outputted. That presumption and methodizing must be there.

On the other hand, analytical philosophy must depend on subjectivity. Though its first aim and original premise is intended to make the ones who are engaged in it so being interested in theologically indwelling own idea's analysis.

Though, necessarily, phenomenology is based on objective view relevant with natural science, meanwhile, analytical philosophy is based on subjective view relevant with religious creed.

Thus, consequently, analytical philosophy must head for precise words' interpreting and analysis of that conceiving nature in mind.Though its nature is very familiar with theology.
Simply, phenomenology takes stance that for the present totalized summary is important and that must be necessary. Thus it indends to practically socially conceivable idea and its utility in emphasis.
Meantime, analytical philosophy must rely on our privately conceivable mind's analysis, necessarily it could have tendency around comprehension toward what we have subjectivity in resonable answering and delition to that tasty mind's trouble. Thereby analytical philosophy is familiar with theology.

Simply, phenomenology is inclined to have indication directly to our mind for smooting our daily routine, on the other hand, analytical philosophy is inclined to indirectly indicate in meditatable mind's creation.

Nevertheless, eventually we could have not solve any objectivity and subjectivity in discrimination. Because phenomenology must decide to have indication subjectivity is never solved in analysis and it should not be done.
Meanwhile, analytical philosophy must decide to have the idea that subjectivity must never be dealt so ambiguously, because we could survive according to that subjective mind.

Then, in conclusion, after all, phenomenology must be so useful and adavantageous to create governing wisdom to any personal citizen, though it'd be so practical.
On the other hand, analytical philosophy must claim that any useful nor advantageous idea should be dealt or regard so skeptical.
Though, eventually phenomenology is based on positively affirmative around social consciousness and dutiful mind in justice.
On the other hand, analytical phlosophy must have mind and tendency around rejecting any affirmative idea and skepticism toward any powerful idea, though necessarily it intends to negative stance.

In the end, anybody at the matter of fact, both feelings and emotional time in daily life.
And we'd never decide which stance is more important nor the best completed soluvable perfection.

Just, I at the matter of fact, have some abandonment around perfect both academic attitude's synthesis, nevetheless, if we appropriately comprehend both mutually differentiated stance and tendency, according to our own mind state or mentality and spiritual mode, we'd use both of them so practically in regarding our own mind.

Thereby, I'd like to utilize phenomenology for socially necessary subjective anaysis, and do analytical philosophy for solving our mind's obligedly suffering from confused and mess-up in daily life.
Because, actually we have according to each occasional time, both mutually completely symmetrical mental mode. At very positively regarding mindful situation makes us comprehend phenomenology in dealing with everything in daily life, and I really use this method in summary to our daily life reality's depiction.
On the other hand, I have also meditatable mind time and occasion, and if the moment comes up to me, I try to have an idea according to analytical philosophy.

And necessarily, if anybody could have certain academic stance, both academic studies could never had in compatibility. However, I have stance to create literature with mainly poetry creating and essay writing, though toward their analysis and summary phenomenologic viewpoint could be useful.
On the other hand, I also create novel series, though for advancement and output totalized claimable its theme, analytical philosophy's method is useful, nevertheless, at my case, rather novel's theme's stance must be relevant with religious creed to us, though for arranging my ideas in my brain, phenomenologic alleging stance(by the way, its alleging method is anytime necessarily so objective) is useful at least when I am confused.
Nevertheless, occasionally, there would be the case rather keeping so confusion and mess-up in mind could be useful, that case either exists in our daily life, thus in that time, also analytical philosophy is either necessary probalby to anyone.(Of course, professional adacemist is not taking that stance)

However, at the matter of fact, essay thing, poetry thing could be at least to me, both so enigmatic, and novel thing is at least to me, not fixed form is never taken to my creating stance, though, necessarily I otherwise unconscously use both poetry and essay, only taking advantage of depicting wonderful novel, that conclusion could be induced there.

However, to me, that in induction, another deduction, or deducing truth could be seen found in mind, and that matter must be relevant with otherwise familiar with subjectivity and objectivity must have mutually inseparably very profoundly complicated relevance and either so ambivalently destined hostile but strangely mutually understandable relevance.

Namely, in fact, eventually liking emotion, or favorable mind could not be so straightly postive in possibilty around either skeptically mindfulness, or not solvable comical, but a little bit seriously taken mind's inner conflict.

By the way, this time very complicated development is done at this article, that necessity must be integral probalby for arranging so summarized and simply claiming message or sentences in creation like so short poem.

Because ultimately verse and prose could never precisely separable. And phenomenology is unconsiously taking stance at alleging so defiantly and that must be so subjective attirude, meanwhile, analytical philosophy must be so objecgive attitude only around concluding summary, because necessarily it has skeptical stance around conclusion's outputting.
Though, necessarily at this decisive necessity, analytical philosophy must take stance that conclusion is unnecessary at taking at leat at life truth's inquirable solution. Though, necessarily analytical philosophy could have so ambiguously daringly mistfying attitude.
And sometimes, if we have positive regard to analytical philosophy in that truth, we must have very smooth and easy carrying around verse's creation.
Nevertheless, anytime that verse creative mind stance could never be kept in mind for us, and more practically dealt attitude could be demanded, at the occasion, we must need philosophical easy alleging.

Though, necessarily phenonenonogy must regard dynamic defiance and summrized objectivity as correct, meanwhile when we have mentally gloomy and so inactively not ambitious time either, at the time, analytical philosophy's immnently indwelling religious mind's analysis is so effective, we could say, so generally.

However, necessarily that remark is probably also just so subjective idea around my creating stance and study attitude, I'd say so either....

Mar. 12th.   2022