Lebowitz’s statement relates to the reality (‘life’) that confronts the individual or society when it cannot have recourse to anything else (‘sleep’). Society and individuals ‘sleep’ when they blame others or external situations, are distracted by material obligations or ambitions and when they ignore the common world that is shared with humanity. However, reality or life is not simply the result of not being distracted. Indeed, such distractions are a part of life that contributes to the growth of the individual or society. On another level, Lebowitz could be asserting that in some way, the soporific state, sleep, is in some way superior to the hard reality of life and when we cannot sleep, we are force to face it. In a broader sense, life may be seen as a continual process in which slep is of universal benefit.
The distractions available to Western society are numerous. Mp3 players, gambling, leisure time, the internet and the like all provide escapes from the obligations or responsibilities we may face in life. Perhaps the beneficial nature of these diversions lies in the opportunity to find oneself. The time one may have to reflect on prior events or mistakes can be a vital time in growth and maturity. However, excessive ‘tuning out’ especially in young people is concerning parents and experts who worry that some people are addicted to leisure devise., such that they are totally out of touch with reality. In another sense, one’s willingness to direct blame at others or situations may lead to stagnations in personal growth or career choices. This perspective is a little narrow for the essence of Nachman’s statement, and can be viewed as having deeper insight.
Life and therefore time passes inexorably such that every thought, experience or action is constantly modifying one’s outlook and the ability to realise one’s potential. The growth potential in distractions may well appear later in life when one have the chance to reflect. What is important here is that individual s and society create their own destiny and realities which relates to that old adage of one reaping what one sews. To extend this metaphor of sewing further, the fruit of what one sews can be re-interred to produce even more fruit. Hence, society and individuals are continually impacted upon by their past choices. The notion of the ANZAC is revered in the Australian psyche, for example, such that it is an irrevocable part of the Australian identity that has a self-perpetuating legend. Hence, the result of our actions in any event, whether in ‘sleep’ or fulfilling our responsibility contribute to who one becomes.
Sleep is not superior to life but its importance for life is an interesting and widely studied event. Once is refreshed and renewed and without it, one would ides. People often are amazed that dictators who perpetrate terrible crimes can sleep and know nothing for brief periods. It is therefore clear that sleep has its place in life that is often wondered at.
To conclude, the diversions from reality are not an absence of reality or life, but a choice in creating one’s destiny. Therefore, ‘sleep’ is important on a physiological level as well as one of destiny.
PS
This one kinda died in the arse right at the end, rambling factor quite high!
Thursday 8 March 2007
“Nothing fails like success”- G. Nachman
Nachman’s statement examines the treacherous and uncertain nature of success. In this sense, failure relates to not realising one’s personal goals in spite of the effort that is made. Success can come in many forms, there is materially successful people, academic success, success in relationships and sport. The variety of success that can be realised in life indicates that although some success can be treacherous, it would be better seen as existing along a continuum of results or consequences of success. A broader perspective on this assertion is the societal angle, in which the collective success of people can be a blessing or a curse.
Material success can enable an individual to realise many of life’s dreams and ambitions. However, it would seem that material success does not automatically equate to satisfied people. Perhaps then, the steps taken and sacrifices made to realise incremental success is more likely to bring happiness in the form of a sense of achievement. On the other hand, materially successful people could well develop a variety of negative attitudes towards other and stagnate in their dreams. Moreover, material success of the pursuit of it could make people failures in their relationships, possibly neglecting spouses, friends, siblings or children to realise such goals. It is quite clear then that success or too much of it can fail an individual. Nevertheless, there are many other aspects to this concept that must be noted.
Success in life will not automatically or eventually cloud one’s judgement to the extent that other important things are neglected. What is central is the attitude we adopt to the situations or our achievement in lief. Winston Churchill once stated that “success is going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm…”. This seems to highlight the intertwined destiny of success, the opposite being failure. However, some forms of success such as the academic generally leads to an embellishment of the individual. One particular perspective on this is that the more one discovers or learns, the more they realise how little they know. In this regard, therefore, success in learning is more likely to dispose individuals to an even more open attitude to the world individuals to an even more open attitude to the world., which could be viewed as a realisation of the original purpose. The crucial point here is the light individuals see their achievements in. Thus, success does not necessarily equate to certain failure, but it does lead to altered perspective on a personal level. This perspective also applies to the society nad how they respond to realised goals.
There are groups in society that assert that the more successful we become, the more responsibility society has to its weaker members. There are still other groups stating that materially successful societies become increasingly self-seeking and collectively more narrow minded in their outlook. The first point would constitute failure if society ignored the disadvantaged whereas the second notion states that progressing societies already fail in an by themselves. This difference is indicative of the continuum of failure that surrounds success. That is to say, to attempt to do something is to allow failure, but to do nothing is to have already failed. Thus, societies’ obligation shed some light on the series of events that constitute failure.
It is clear that in some forms, success is treacherous and detrimental to those who do not view it as part of the growth and toil of humanity.
Material success can enable an individual to realise many of life’s dreams and ambitions. However, it would seem that material success does not automatically equate to satisfied people. Perhaps then, the steps taken and sacrifices made to realise incremental success is more likely to bring happiness in the form of a sense of achievement. On the other hand, materially successful people could well develop a variety of negative attitudes towards other and stagnate in their dreams. Moreover, material success of the pursuit of it could make people failures in their relationships, possibly neglecting spouses, friends, siblings or children to realise such goals. It is quite clear then that success or too much of it can fail an individual. Nevertheless, there are many other aspects to this concept that must be noted.
Success in life will not automatically or eventually cloud one’s judgement to the extent that other important things are neglected. What is central is the attitude we adopt to the situations or our achievement in lief. Winston Churchill once stated that “success is going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm…”. This seems to highlight the intertwined destiny of success, the opposite being failure. However, some forms of success such as the academic generally leads to an embellishment of the individual. One particular perspective on this is that the more one discovers or learns, the more they realise how little they know. In this regard, therefore, success in learning is more likely to dispose individuals to an even more open attitude to the world individuals to an even more open attitude to the world., which could be viewed as a realisation of the original purpose. The crucial point here is the light individuals see their achievements in. Thus, success does not necessarily equate to certain failure, but it does lead to altered perspective on a personal level. This perspective also applies to the society nad how they respond to realised goals.
There are groups in society that assert that the more successful we become, the more responsibility society has to its weaker members. There are still other groups stating that materially successful societies become increasingly self-seeking and collectively more narrow minded in their outlook. The first point would constitute failure if society ignored the disadvantaged whereas the second notion states that progressing societies already fail in an by themselves. This difference is indicative of the continuum of failure that surrounds success. That is to say, to attempt to do something is to allow failure, but to do nothing is to have already failed. Thus, societies’ obligation shed some light on the series of events that constitute failure.
It is clear that in some forms, success is treacherous and detrimental to those who do not view it as part of the growth and toil of humanity.
Friday 2 March 2007
“You grow up the day you have your first real laugh- at yourself” - Ethel Barrymore
Ethel Barrymore promotes the need for all people to look inward. In this respect, to ‘grow up’ would be to become more mature and more aware of one’s real position among their fellow men and women. Such growth might result in a more open individual as is suggested. A key term is laughter, real laughter that puts things and events in their real perspective. The interpersonal benefits and growth potential would better be seen as part of a continuum of attributes that contribute to maturation. In a broader sense, too, as society forms its identity, the notion of self-laughter as a tool of revelation is an important indicator of growth.
The benefit of placing things in their right perspective, perhaps in a humorous way, is a tool for self revelation. To laugh recognises some inconsistency, some ironic or incongruent factor or aspect of our personality and behaviour. To view ourselves as inconsistent may well be a healthy sign that fewer things are absolute that one once believed them to be. This process suggests reflection from which learning and behaviour modification is likely to spring. It also leads to an acknowledgment that one shares a common society in which our own actions are on display to be judged and modified. In this light, self-laughter is one instrumental indication of an embellishment of personal character.
The maturity and growth of an individual does not rely on one factor alone, however. Moreover, our characters generally develop and vacillate throughout life via the constant presentation of other role models, situations or events. All such things have their role in contributing to an individual’s sum total of actions, emotions and experiences. While the revealing nature of laugher is important, it would be better seen as part of series of factors that alter our view of ourselves. One such example may be the observation of body language in an interpersonal situation that provide visual cues as to how another feels. It is a constant exposure to this and other things that modifies our own behaviour and reactions to various aspects of life.
The wider perspective on Barrymore’s assertion is that of society’s ability to ‘laugh’ at itself and how indicative this is of growth. Australian society is relatively young and some significant events illustrate its own informal and insouciant overtones. Indeed, various cartoons during the Great Depression reveal a more larrikin approach to life and such events developed notions that remained within the collective psyche. Other nations such as Malaysia intervene when it comes to political cartoons satirising the state of affairs, whereas in other cultures, the ability to laugh at its leaders in enshrined to an extent that when this is threatened, much controversy arises. Any legislation against ‘free speech’ as is broadly defined is broadly defined is often criticised on the basis of it leading to a stagnation of ideas. Hence, the laughter aspect is quite revealing politically and on a social level.
It is clear therefore that laughter may well provide the growth catalyst in many individuals. The plethora of events that surround us contribute to theses as well. Finally society has become divided on this very notion showing at least on laughter’s powerful revealing ability.
The benefit of placing things in their right perspective, perhaps in a humorous way, is a tool for self revelation. To laugh recognises some inconsistency, some ironic or incongruent factor or aspect of our personality and behaviour. To view ourselves as inconsistent may well be a healthy sign that fewer things are absolute that one once believed them to be. This process suggests reflection from which learning and behaviour modification is likely to spring. It also leads to an acknowledgment that one shares a common society in which our own actions are on display to be judged and modified. In this light, self-laughter is one instrumental indication of an embellishment of personal character.
The maturity and growth of an individual does not rely on one factor alone, however. Moreover, our characters generally develop and vacillate throughout life via the constant presentation of other role models, situations or events. All such things have their role in contributing to an individual’s sum total of actions, emotions and experiences. While the revealing nature of laugher is important, it would be better seen as part of series of factors that alter our view of ourselves. One such example may be the observation of body language in an interpersonal situation that provide visual cues as to how another feels. It is a constant exposure to this and other things that modifies our own behaviour and reactions to various aspects of life.
The wider perspective on Barrymore’s assertion is that of society’s ability to ‘laugh’ at itself and how indicative this is of growth. Australian society is relatively young and some significant events illustrate its own informal and insouciant overtones. Indeed, various cartoons during the Great Depression reveal a more larrikin approach to life and such events developed notions that remained within the collective psyche. Other nations such as Malaysia intervene when it comes to political cartoons satirising the state of affairs, whereas in other cultures, the ability to laugh at its leaders in enshrined to an extent that when this is threatened, much controversy arises. Any legislation against ‘free speech’ as is broadly defined is broadly defined is often criticised on the basis of it leading to a stagnation of ideas. Hence, the laughter aspect is quite revealing politically and on a social level.
It is clear therefore that laughter may well provide the growth catalyst in many individuals. The plethora of events that surround us contribute to theses as well. Finally society has become divided on this very notion showing at least on laughter’s powerful revealing ability.
“That some should be rich, shows that others may become rich, and, hence, is just encouragement to industry and enterprise” Abraham Lincoln
The notion of a rich person is a weighted concept. Rich in this regard could be interpreted as material comfort and the ownership of possessions. The terms industry and enterprise promote the values of hard work and motivated planning that is likely to bring success. While Lincoln’s perspective relies on the existence and history of materially well-off individuals to be a role model for others, it should be acknowledged that in some cases, the desire and aims of the individual are formed in an environment that is not conduce to wealth creation and comfort seeking. In a broader sense, toon, this notion addresses social issues in which some nations become rich while others struggle to adopt.
The application of sound planning and goal setting could be seen as indispensable tools for wealth creation. Indeed, countless ‘self-help’ books recall the determination of various individuals who in some way ‘make it’ in the world. The crucial point here is that the environment and the network of people provide the setting in which one can succeed. The requirement to be industrious and apply innovative thinking acknowledges basic realities of Western economics. That is, realities of value creation and the non-existence of a ‘free lunch’ according to Milton Friedman. It is for this reason that various funding pathways exist to enable those who have innovative ideas to create value or solve existing problems. However, not every individual is adopted to entrepreneurial or business activity, and so the exhortation to work hard requires the general adult public to craft themselves into valuable ‘products’. Hence, not only does the individual have a reason to work hard based on the success of others, but he or she must work to sustain a relatively comfortable life.
The notion that industrious activity and focus automatically pays off may not apply in every situation. Indeed, an individual in a 3rd world nation may well desire to become rich or to sustain a comfortable life, but simply cannot work within the conditions of his or her country. Lincoln’s fundamental assertion here is one of opportunity and that it applies to everyone. However, the combination of wars, inflation, and political instability make this assertion inapplicable to all people. Instead, survival is a key goal in these situations. Hence, the encouragement to work and to plan in wealth creation should be seen as part of a continuum. At one extreme is wealth acquisition whereas the other extreme is survival. Recently, nations such as China and India typify this spectrum of survival. To advance their own economies, they rely on similar products that have presented opportunity to Western nations, namely that of oil. In the face of increasingly unsustainable consumption patterns, the promotion of equal opportunity should be viewed in a different paradigm.
To address this concept more broadly, societies become rich through the efforts of every individual who seek out their happiness in the various ways available to them. The example of Western consumption patterns, however, does not seem to be a viable goal for the world. Indeed, six planets would be need support such lifestyles of every human being. Moreover, the division of riches between nations is an aspect of geography as well as ethics. This means that although resources are continually used, world trade and IMF dealings would be better off redefining the real requirements for an equitable and ‘rich’ life.
It is clear, therefore, that opportunity is not equal to everyone to become rich. Thus the paradigm has shifted between survival and material comfort. All nations increasingly recognise this as the world opens up and accounts for the consumption and destiny of resources and talent.
The application of sound planning and goal setting could be seen as indispensable tools for wealth creation. Indeed, countless ‘self-help’ books recall the determination of various individuals who in some way ‘make it’ in the world. The crucial point here is that the environment and the network of people provide the setting in which one can succeed. The requirement to be industrious and apply innovative thinking acknowledges basic realities of Western economics. That is, realities of value creation and the non-existence of a ‘free lunch’ according to Milton Friedman. It is for this reason that various funding pathways exist to enable those who have innovative ideas to create value or solve existing problems. However, not every individual is adopted to entrepreneurial or business activity, and so the exhortation to work hard requires the general adult public to craft themselves into valuable ‘products’. Hence, not only does the individual have a reason to work hard based on the success of others, but he or she must work to sustain a relatively comfortable life.
The notion that industrious activity and focus automatically pays off may not apply in every situation. Indeed, an individual in a 3rd world nation may well desire to become rich or to sustain a comfortable life, but simply cannot work within the conditions of his or her country. Lincoln’s fundamental assertion here is one of opportunity and that it applies to everyone. However, the combination of wars, inflation, and political instability make this assertion inapplicable to all people. Instead, survival is a key goal in these situations. Hence, the encouragement to work and to plan in wealth creation should be seen as part of a continuum. At one extreme is wealth acquisition whereas the other extreme is survival. Recently, nations such as China and India typify this spectrum of survival. To advance their own economies, they rely on similar products that have presented opportunity to Western nations, namely that of oil. In the face of increasingly unsustainable consumption patterns, the promotion of equal opportunity should be viewed in a different paradigm.
To address this concept more broadly, societies become rich through the efforts of every individual who seek out their happiness in the various ways available to them. The example of Western consumption patterns, however, does not seem to be a viable goal for the world. Indeed, six planets would be need support such lifestyles of every human being. Moreover, the division of riches between nations is an aspect of geography as well as ethics. This means that although resources are continually used, world trade and IMF dealings would be better off redefining the real requirements for an equitable and ‘rich’ life.
It is clear, therefore, that opportunity is not equal to everyone to become rich. Thus the paradigm has shifted between survival and material comfort. All nations increasingly recognise this as the world opens up and accounts for the consumption and destiny of resources and talent.
“Everyone has the obligation to ponder well his own specific traits of character. He must also regulate them adequately and not wonder whether someone
“Everyone has the obligation to ponder well his own specific traits of character. He must also regulate them adequately and not wonder whether someone else’s traits might suit him better. The more definitely his own a man’s character is, the better it fits him.”- Cicero
Cicero provides two clear insights in this passage. The first is the promotion of knowing oneself and owning the person one recognises. The second insight hones in on the common world humanity shares and the varity of attributes prestn in our neighbours. Although the exhortation to know oneself has many benefits, knowledge and emulationof those around us can be a useful and necessary tool in adapting and growing. Hence the obligation is better seen as part of a continuum in which the gamut of attributes benefits the groups of individuals. To address this issue more broadly, the identity of nations, cultures and societies also impacts on the way it carries itself.
Knowing oneself promotes honesty and evaluation. The process of reflection on decisions or interpersonal clashes is likely to engender a more benevolent and open outlook to life. To own one’s identity is also important in that sense of self, as it will engender responses that are both unique and honest. Otherwise, individuals risk acting outside of their own interests and may well tend to exploitation. Hence, a variety of perspectives abound in humanity that arises from various experiences and periods of reflection. In contrast, to own one’s identity or to be wholly focused on the benefits of an individual’s character may lead to mediocrity and a self-satisfaction that could be destructive or detrimental to growth. Hence, the existence of other people allows individuals to continue to modify their behaviour and learn.
The exhortation own oneself or the potential benefits of learning from others exist at two ends of a spectrum. Perhaps Cicero refers to the jealousy or the lack of decisiveness that may arise from individuals constantly wondering whether another’s responses were superior to their own. Definitely within interpersonal interactions jealousy abounds, but this may reside from a deeper dissatisfaction of self, for example. Hence, there may be wisdom in discerning what attributes suit an individual and what attributes could be damaging our ability to relate. The common space we share is also a space of characters in which there are many overlaps and accessions. This process leads to a mosaic of traits that also implicates society and its identity.
The identity of a society is likely to spring from its internal culture as well as the culture from surrounding influences. Australia for example gradually stopped seeing itself as a component of the British Empire and has currently adopted its place among the many Asian nations. This divide is ven seen within suburban city life wherein different geographical regions express different value systems. Hence, society owns its identity insofar as the individuals within it adhere to it, and this is affected by copious shifts in people, ideas and values.
Cicero provides two clear insights in this passage. The first is the promotion of knowing oneself and owning the person one recognises. The second insight hones in on the common world humanity shares and the varity of attributes prestn in our neighbours. Although the exhortation to know oneself has many benefits, knowledge and emulationof those around us can be a useful and necessary tool in adapting and growing. Hence the obligation is better seen as part of a continuum in which the gamut of attributes benefits the groups of individuals. To address this issue more broadly, the identity of nations, cultures and societies also impacts on the way it carries itself.
Knowing oneself promotes honesty and evaluation. The process of reflection on decisions or interpersonal clashes is likely to engender a more benevolent and open outlook to life. To own one’s identity is also important in that sense of self, as it will engender responses that are both unique and honest. Otherwise, individuals risk acting outside of their own interests and may well tend to exploitation. Hence, a variety of perspectives abound in humanity that arises from various experiences and periods of reflection. In contrast, to own one’s identity or to be wholly focused on the benefits of an individual’s character may lead to mediocrity and a self-satisfaction that could be destructive or detrimental to growth. Hence, the existence of other people allows individuals to continue to modify their behaviour and learn.
The exhortation own oneself or the potential benefits of learning from others exist at two ends of a spectrum. Perhaps Cicero refers to the jealousy or the lack of decisiveness that may arise from individuals constantly wondering whether another’s responses were superior to their own. Definitely within interpersonal interactions jealousy abounds, but this may reside from a deeper dissatisfaction of self, for example. Hence, there may be wisdom in discerning what attributes suit an individual and what attributes could be damaging our ability to relate. The common space we share is also a space of characters in which there are many overlaps and accessions. This process leads to a mosaic of traits that also implicates society and its identity.
The identity of a society is likely to spring from its internal culture as well as the culture from surrounding influences. Australia for example gradually stopped seeing itself as a component of the British Empire and has currently adopted its place among the many Asian nations. This divide is ven seen within suburban city life wherein different geographical regions express different value systems. Hence, society owns its identity insofar as the individuals within it adhere to it, and this is affected by copious shifts in people, ideas and values.
Wednesday 21 February 2007
“You don't know true love until you have been married for 20 years”- Anon
Symbols and expressions of love
True love is a weighted concept in this matter and must be examined carefully. Love is not a certain term owing to the fact that is expressed in many ways. Erotic love, familial love, love between friends or infatuated love highlights the ambiguity of this term. Certainly, within the context of marriage and the family there is a background in which true love can flourish- that is, love without conditions. A decision to accept the other in spite of the frictions. However, true love can be experienced or know outside of this context, illustrating the spectrum of ‘loves’ that exist. All of which forms part of the human makeup and contributes to identity and the like. Society, too, in the broadest sense experiences love of a different nature which is important in this issue.
Family life with all its negative attributes such as expenses, interpersonal tensions and shared environments forms the basis of any culture. The notion of the family has always been impalpable in terms of common qualities, but that has changed even more radically in the last 30 years in this country. The experience of true love can be experienced outside of this. A friendship that starts in childhood in which another is accepted and time is spent together is very real to these people, and even if it is not called love, this is how it is experienced. The absence of conditions makes true love possible, but it is not necessarily constrained to the realm of marriages that last longer than the average. Instead, true love is experience in a continuum of events that all contribute to our sense of well-being and the sense of having been loved.
The ‘love’ that exists in society plays out differently to that in the family context. There is the love of country and the love of symbols. There is the collective love of places such as Lone Pine that speaks of a history of patriotic love and sacrifice. This love is experienced in the nation-wide silence that marks the occasion. Love in this sense admires the virtues and dedicated service that contributes to the make-up of society. The crucial point here is that society loves without a sense of time that has passed, but with the symbols that remain. Thus, just as in marriage the symbols of love through the faithfulness to the service of the children, love is known in the points that show it as well as in the memory of those who experience it. Such memories may even lead to the individual and society on to greater and more dedicated love.
It is clear therefore that love without conditions relies on the interpretation of the symbols that remain as a memory or as a action in the individual. Marriage that ideally fosters such love is not the sole source of it.
True love is a weighted concept in this matter and must be examined carefully. Love is not a certain term owing to the fact that is expressed in many ways. Erotic love, familial love, love between friends or infatuated love highlights the ambiguity of this term. Certainly, within the context of marriage and the family there is a background in which true love can flourish- that is, love without conditions. A decision to accept the other in spite of the frictions. However, true love can be experienced or know outside of this context, illustrating the spectrum of ‘loves’ that exist. All of which forms part of the human makeup and contributes to identity and the like. Society, too, in the broadest sense experiences love of a different nature which is important in this issue.
Family life with all its negative attributes such as expenses, interpersonal tensions and shared environments forms the basis of any culture. The notion of the family has always been impalpable in terms of common qualities, but that has changed even more radically in the last 30 years in this country. The experience of true love can be experienced outside of this. A friendship that starts in childhood in which another is accepted and time is spent together is very real to these people, and even if it is not called love, this is how it is experienced. The absence of conditions makes true love possible, but it is not necessarily constrained to the realm of marriages that last longer than the average. Instead, true love is experience in a continuum of events that all contribute to our sense of well-being and the sense of having been loved.
The ‘love’ that exists in society plays out differently to that in the family context. There is the love of country and the love of symbols. There is the collective love of places such as Lone Pine that speaks of a history of patriotic love and sacrifice. This love is experienced in the nation-wide silence that marks the occasion. Love in this sense admires the virtues and dedicated service that contributes to the make-up of society. The crucial point here is that society loves without a sense of time that has passed, but with the symbols that remain. Thus, just as in marriage the symbols of love through the faithfulness to the service of the children, love is known in the points that show it as well as in the memory of those who experience it. Such memories may even lead to the individual and society on to greater and more dedicated love.
It is clear therefore that love without conditions relies on the interpretation of the symbols that remain as a memory or as a action in the individual. Marriage that ideally fosters such love is not the sole source of it.
“Few things help an individual more than to place responsibility on him, and to let him know that you trust him”- Booker T. Washington
Responsibility is complemented by acceptance
Washington promotes the developmental effect that both responsibility and trust can have on an individual. What must be examined closely is the notion of ‘help’. To help an individual would indicate personal growth but would also implicate their sense of well-being and self-worth. Responsibility is any task or expectation that is place upon people that is generated out of trust and paves the way for such trust to grow. Certainly responsibility leads to personal growth, but there are cases in which too much responsibility can be an excessive burden. Moreover, at the other end of the spectrum, some things such as love, forgiveness and acceptance might even be more beneficial than responsibilities in interpersonal situations. Finally, and more broadly, the general public is challenged by the notion of collective responsibility which coexists with their rights.
Responsibility allows an individual to show their personal quality and creates situations in which one’s personal judgement and ability to de decisive is tested. The process of identifying the problem, directing others to meet that need will inevitably cause one to reflect on their experience. This self-evaluation process is certainly a useful aspect of the personal growth that takes place. In this sense, the individual is more likely to be grateful for the experience and the opportunity to show their quality. On the other hand, excessive or unreasonable expectations can lead to fear within an individual and often the failure to succeed in this case can lead to a break down in individual relationships and a perennial fear of [subsequent] failure. Hence, not only is the reputation of the person implicated potentially vulnerable, the individual’s self-image is also involved. It is clear that this is no help to anyone who cannot handle a particular responsibility. The crucial issue here is therefore a managerial one that must be executed efficiently and thoughtfully.
In early childhood and adolescence, often the most helpful thing is the knowledge that they are love and accepted. Moreover, there is a need to feel forgiven when a mistake is made such that there is room for experience and personal reflection. Although what is often treasured are those times when a parent gives a responsibility such as the decision as to when to go to bed, this is not the sole thing which helps a child. Hence, responsibilities and their remedial qualities would be better seen as part of a continuum of things that lead to personal growth.
A reflection on the collective responsibility of society indicates that freedom to pursue happiness is a good thing. The authorities for example, issue licenses and the like which permits us to seek out our dream. Also, in democratic elections, the responsibility is placed on people to elect a competent leader. However, collective rights are no help to society when certain individuals abuse them, and there are many cases in which it is more helpful to leave the decisions to more informed authorities. The majority can also exert a type of social tyranny when its acts on its own interests.
It is clear therefore that responsibility exists as one aspect of a continuum of need and tools in which both the society and individual can grow and prosper.
Washington promotes the developmental effect that both responsibility and trust can have on an individual. What must be examined closely is the notion of ‘help’. To help an individual would indicate personal growth but would also implicate their sense of well-being and self-worth. Responsibility is any task or expectation that is place upon people that is generated out of trust and paves the way for such trust to grow. Certainly responsibility leads to personal growth, but there are cases in which too much responsibility can be an excessive burden. Moreover, at the other end of the spectrum, some things such as love, forgiveness and acceptance might even be more beneficial than responsibilities in interpersonal situations. Finally, and more broadly, the general public is challenged by the notion of collective responsibility which coexists with their rights.
Responsibility allows an individual to show their personal quality and creates situations in which one’s personal judgement and ability to de decisive is tested. The process of identifying the problem, directing others to meet that need will inevitably cause one to reflect on their experience. This self-evaluation process is certainly a useful aspect of the personal growth that takes place. In this sense, the individual is more likely to be grateful for the experience and the opportunity to show their quality. On the other hand, excessive or unreasonable expectations can lead to fear within an individual and often the failure to succeed in this case can lead to a break down in individual relationships and a perennial fear of [subsequent] failure. Hence, not only is the reputation of the person implicated potentially vulnerable, the individual’s self-image is also involved. It is clear that this is no help to anyone who cannot handle a particular responsibility. The crucial issue here is therefore a managerial one that must be executed efficiently and thoughtfully.
In early childhood and adolescence, often the most helpful thing is the knowledge that they are love and accepted. Moreover, there is a need to feel forgiven when a mistake is made such that there is room for experience and personal reflection. Although what is often treasured are those times when a parent gives a responsibility such as the decision as to when to go to bed, this is not the sole thing which helps a child. Hence, responsibilities and their remedial qualities would be better seen as part of a continuum of things that lead to personal growth.
A reflection on the collective responsibility of society indicates that freedom to pursue happiness is a good thing. The authorities for example, issue licenses and the like which permits us to seek out our dream. Also, in democratic elections, the responsibility is placed on people to elect a competent leader. However, collective rights are no help to society when certain individuals abuse them, and there are many cases in which it is more helpful to leave the decisions to more informed authorities. The majority can also exert a type of social tyranny when its acts on its own interests.
It is clear therefore that responsibility exists as one aspect of a continuum of need and tools in which both the society and individual can grow and prosper.
Tuesday 20 February 2007
“I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern without any superhuman authority behi
Ethics as distinct from morals in the face of objective truth
Einstein introduces an interesting argument regarding ethics, the afterlife and the existence of a supernatural being. Such weighted concepts are all constant questions in the minds of individuals, and generate powerful ideological stances on both sides. The immortality of the individual could be perceived as the existence of a human soul that is incorruptible. Ethics is the study and the implementation of what is perceived as just and good which is quite distinct from morals. The crucial point here is one of objective truth in the face of constantly changing society and its make up. There are a number of considerations here: at its most narrow, the quote addresses ethical directions that are taken; but at its broadest, one could accept that a spectrum of truths get closer to objective truth.
The transience of the human person is a fait accompli. Whether the spirit or soul persists is still a contended issue in theological circles. The existence of a soul that can be corrupted by negative thoughts, hurtful actions and the like is akin to the more tenable concept of the human character that adapts the qualities of those around them and what comes from inside. One logical consequence of the non-existence or the mortality of the human soul might be that it does not matter how we act, as there is no lasting justice. In contrast, a large group within society champions the need for ethics so that life can be well-ordered and society can enjoy relative peace. IN this light, ethics seems to be largely a human mechanism for social order. However ethics, as distinct from morals, proposes what is right and just. Morals, on the other hand, are what allow people to choose what is right or wrong, irrespective of what ethics demands. St. Paul complains to an early Christian community that he often does what is hateful to himself which highlights the divide between ethics as informed by humanity and morals which he believes to be regulated by a supernatural and omniscient being.
The question remains whether objective truth persists in the face of a changing societal makeup. That is, as new people grow and are influenced by their environment, do they still adhere to some system of truth that guides how they act and respond in spite of what society says? This is the role that tradition plays in ordering various societies across the globe. Hence, in Papua New Guinea, traditional marriage rites and tribal justice exists alongside an increasingly Westernised government and people. Tradition is the voice that is still heard among the vacillating opinions of the society and in this sense; truth remains objective without human influence. An important acknowledgement here is that ethics continues alongside moral behaviour, in a spectrum of influences that in some way persists in spite of the terminable individual.
It is clear therefore that one impact time has had on society is in elucidating the importance of tradition and objective truths in society. Whether such discussions point society to objective [I meant omniscient!] beings is a matter of discernment.
Einstein introduces an interesting argument regarding ethics, the afterlife and the existence of a supernatural being. Such weighted concepts are all constant questions in the minds of individuals, and generate powerful ideological stances on both sides. The immortality of the individual could be perceived as the existence of a human soul that is incorruptible. Ethics is the study and the implementation of what is perceived as just and good which is quite distinct from morals. The crucial point here is one of objective truth in the face of constantly changing society and its make up. There are a number of considerations here: at its most narrow, the quote addresses ethical directions that are taken; but at its broadest, one could accept that a spectrum of truths get closer to objective truth.
The transience of the human person is a fait accompli. Whether the spirit or soul persists is still a contended issue in theological circles. The existence of a soul that can be corrupted by negative thoughts, hurtful actions and the like is akin to the more tenable concept of the human character that adapts the qualities of those around them and what comes from inside. One logical consequence of the non-existence or the mortality of the human soul might be that it does not matter how we act, as there is no lasting justice. In contrast, a large group within society champions the need for ethics so that life can be well-ordered and society can enjoy relative peace. IN this light, ethics seems to be largely a human mechanism for social order. However ethics, as distinct from morals, proposes what is right and just. Morals, on the other hand, are what allow people to choose what is right or wrong, irrespective of what ethics demands. St. Paul complains to an early Christian community that he often does what is hateful to himself which highlights the divide between ethics as informed by humanity and morals which he believes to be regulated by a supernatural and omniscient being.
The question remains whether objective truth persists in the face of a changing societal makeup. That is, as new people grow and are influenced by their environment, do they still adhere to some system of truth that guides how they act and respond in spite of what society says? This is the role that tradition plays in ordering various societies across the globe. Hence, in Papua New Guinea, traditional marriage rites and tribal justice exists alongside an increasingly Westernised government and people. Tradition is the voice that is still heard among the vacillating opinions of the society and in this sense; truth remains objective without human influence. An important acknowledgement here is that ethics continues alongside moral behaviour, in a spectrum of influences that in some way persists in spite of the terminable individual.
It is clear therefore that one impact time has had on society is in elucidating the importance of tradition and objective truths in society. Whether such discussions point society to objective [I meant omniscient!] beings is a matter of discernment.
“Character is like a tree and reputation like a shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing”- Abraham Lincoln
Character embellishes the reputation
The character of the individual is understood to be the personal attributes that enable him or her to respond to situations that are both internal and external. On the other hand, a reputation is something one gains from the general public who respond to the actions an individual takes and the inner qualities that an individual has. In asserting that reputation is a shadow seems to indicate that it is a transient thing that relies solely on the perceptions of others. Rather, it is the character that endures beyond the accolades and acknowledgement surrounding achievement. In a broader sense, the character and reputation of people lies at two extremes of a continuum of inner motivations, and both aspects are thought to be essential to living well and purposefully.
The human person develops their character over many stages in their life. Hence, one’s character often takes twists and turns, which is ironic considering it is purported to be the one constant amid a vacillating reputation. The character we build relies in part on the impressions other make on us. Countless parents are concerned, for example, about what role models exist for their children in the community. This concern acknowledges the mosaic-type character we accumulate as we develop. There is generally a point when people being to like whom they feel they have become, and this self-concept becomes a sort of compass point that responds in a particular way in certain situations. To some, this is perceived as maturity. However, it would be underestimating the impact of the rest of our lives to think that the character stagnates. Indeed, to use the metaphor of Lincoln, trees do not always reach a point and then stop growing. Rather, trees branch out form the childhood roots that have been established and thus the character grows. Therefore, whereas our individual characters may well be sourced in a plethora of impressions, these are merely foundations that we develop as we grow.
To extend Lincoln’s metaphor one point further, the more trees branch out, the more their shadow grows. That is to say that the reputation we gain among our peers, colleagues and families grow as we age. Nevertheless, as many actors, rock stars, politicians and leaders in the business community have discovered, this ‘shadow’ can be a shifting asset that gains its ‘length’ as a direct result of the light that is cast upon it. To suggest that reputation is an aspect of humanity that is devoid of substance, however, would ignore how some gain expediency from their reputation to perform good work. Reputation can be an asset. While this may be a extension of a benevolent person’s character, it is useful in itself.
One final point is the fact that both aspects of the human character combine to create a unique individual who, at various times in their life will rely on either aspect to get them through a situation. Therefore, the ‘tree’ and ‘shadow’ exist in a continuum in which is neither is superior to the other.
It is clear therefore that the character of people grows and extends and casts a shadow. This shadow may well shift and vary according to the light cast on it. Nonetheless, these two aspects are useful concepts of the human person.
The character of the individual is understood to be the personal attributes that enable him or her to respond to situations that are both internal and external. On the other hand, a reputation is something one gains from the general public who respond to the actions an individual takes and the inner qualities that an individual has. In asserting that reputation is a shadow seems to indicate that it is a transient thing that relies solely on the perceptions of others. Rather, it is the character that endures beyond the accolades and acknowledgement surrounding achievement. In a broader sense, the character and reputation of people lies at two extremes of a continuum of inner motivations, and both aspects are thought to be essential to living well and purposefully.
The human person develops their character over many stages in their life. Hence, one’s character often takes twists and turns, which is ironic considering it is purported to be the one constant amid a vacillating reputation. The character we build relies in part on the impressions other make on us. Countless parents are concerned, for example, about what role models exist for their children in the community. This concern acknowledges the mosaic-type character we accumulate as we develop. There is generally a point when people being to like whom they feel they have become, and this self-concept becomes a sort of compass point that responds in a particular way in certain situations. To some, this is perceived as maturity. However, it would be underestimating the impact of the rest of our lives to think that the character stagnates. Indeed, to use the metaphor of Lincoln, trees do not always reach a point and then stop growing. Rather, trees branch out form the childhood roots that have been established and thus the character grows. Therefore, whereas our individual characters may well be sourced in a plethora of impressions, these are merely foundations that we develop as we grow.
To extend Lincoln’s metaphor one point further, the more trees branch out, the more their shadow grows. That is to say that the reputation we gain among our peers, colleagues and families grow as we age. Nevertheless, as many actors, rock stars, politicians and leaders in the business community have discovered, this ‘shadow’ can be a shifting asset that gains its ‘length’ as a direct result of the light that is cast upon it. To suggest that reputation is an aspect of humanity that is devoid of substance, however, would ignore how some gain expediency from their reputation to perform good work. Reputation can be an asset. While this may be a extension of a benevolent person’s character, it is useful in itself.
One final point is the fact that both aspects of the human character combine to create a unique individual who, at various times in their life will rely on either aspect to get them through a situation. Therefore, the ‘tree’ and ‘shadow’ exist in a continuum in which is neither is superior to the other.
It is clear therefore that the character of people grows and extends and casts a shadow. This shadow may well shift and vary according to the light cast on it. Nonetheless, these two aspects are useful concepts of the human person.
Saturday 17 February 2007
“There are two ways to live your life: one is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.” – Albert Einstein
Einstein identifies a dichotomy both in the individual and also in the society. This could be interpreted as the spiritual and the rational side to people or the belief of destiny. However, this idea also goes further and applies in the field of education and interpersonal relations that is in the mindsets we adopt. A final consideration here is the acknowledgement that agnosticism and uncertainty apply to many individuals and that their view is also valid.
Einstein was ain intrinsically y curious personality which despised authority and lauded the ability to change the paradigm in our way of thinking. Interestingly, there was also an ethical side to Einstein and a belief in some omnipotent being that inscribed all possible laws into the individual. Having come across many people he had certainly experienced the rational and spiritual dispositions. Rational people may be scientifically-minded who believe that everything can be reduced to a set of principles. Hence, it is no surprise to the rational person that society continues to advance in technology and knowledge. In contrast, there are those who cannot accept that there is a finite depth to anything and to an extent this is true of people and how the relate and form societies. Charles de Gaulle is once quoted saying “…how can anyone conceive of a one-party system in a country that has two hundred varieties of cheese?” To these people, life is a continual journey in which few things are certain. Neither mindset is superior, but both are present in humanity.
A broader appreciation of Einstein’s assertion is that some people are naturally more curious than others. The Myers-Briggs classification system separates some people on their level of intuition or judgement in situations. This is an acceptance of the different approaches people adopt to life. In the realm of education, Australian society has gradually considered the variety of preferences among students. Vocational-type training is receiving much support in encouraging people to find their way in a society that still emphasises the need for higher education. Higher education is a necessary cog in society, however, the higher the degree of specialisation, the more difficult it can become to communicate this benefit to society. With a realisation of different learning types comes a more equitable society that embraces the individual. In addition, relationships can succeed or fail on the grounds of our outlook on life. A rational minded person will frustrate the wondering and impulsive ‘spiritual’ sided person. An appreciation of variety is a sign both of maturity and self-confidence.
A final point here is the widespread ‘societal-agnosticism’ or uncertainty in society. “Agnostics’ can be thought of not merely as people eschewing religious belief, but also as those who are unsure whether rational or spiritual ways of thinking work. The rise of Eastern mysticism in
To conclude, the dichotomy of persons is clear both on an individual and collective level. The uncertainty of people does not make their life’s journey meaningless. The acknowledgement of this is a helpful tool in acknowledging the diversity of people and nations.
PS
I think this essay question wanted the responder to focus on how people live their lives. Instead, I just looked at different personality types. So this isn't very well done in my mind! - Mick Smith
“Mediocrity doesn’t mean average intelligence, it means an average intelligence that resents and envies its betters”- Ayn Rand
Apathy is viewed as a plague to the individual drive to succeed. It is especially eschewed by parents and teachers who are custodians of the young and are loathe to see a life wasted. Indeed, even the late Pope John Paul II warned young people against mediocrity, but more importantly, not to be fearful. Thus, it is clear that such lifestyles are generally shunned. But for the mediocre individual, resentment and spite may well foster habits which lead to underdeveloped potential. The result is a person of average intelligence in every sense of the word. It is most likely an inwardly-directed self loathing that laments the fact that their own efforts to become better people have failed. What is probably lacking in these lives is an acknowledgement of their importance, primarily through parent, but also through peers and society in general. Hence, it is to a large extent a fault of a person’s environment that engenders a mediocre state that may eventually see the individual failing to love. Again, it is a failure to love and nurture that leads to raw potential.
Society has a duty to support those who are weaker or disadvantaged. In
Lastly, the way in which society approaches issues can lead to an apathetic society that others look on. Indeed,
It is clear, therefore, that spite and envy are not at the source of mediocrity but it is a failure to love. Society has a duty to those in troubled circumstances. The wider society must also be aware of its own attitude to others.
PS
I think this was a terrible attempt!!! - Mick Smith
Come my friends, ‘tis not too late to seek a newer world- Tennyson
Tennyson encourages us all as a society and as individuals to collectively seek a new world. He values ambition and drive which does not accept the state of the world, but actively seeks to change it. Time is an important aspect here in revealing the facts about embracing change. Another factor is the innate human desire for progress which can be modelled by the scientific process. In a broader sense, however, the society at large suffers from a collective myopia which prevents it from seeking a new world and often it takes movements or disasters to awaken us from the stupor of the mundane.
One aspect of time addressed her is that it is constant and unending. Hence, human society will never cease in embracing change and proactively instigating it in their lives. Those who refuse to change are often view with pity as other will say they lack the foresight to enjoy another world. As time progresses, various barriers arise that challenge the advancement of society. A good case in point is the since forgotten threat of Bird Flu which could still affect people on a pandemic scale. Such an outbreak is justifiably feared in the threat it poses to the progress of humanity. In the sense that is it never too late, it often require people to challenge their idleness and surmount their self image to embrace change. Steven Herrick writes poem after poem on stories of amelioration because of the desire for a newer world. It is quite clear that with unlimited time, progress is inevitable.
The scientific process can often be divorced from its societal role. Aldous Huxley once asserted that the scientific process and its pursuit of knowledge is an ethical activity. Thus, scientists around the world are perennially involved in the progress of humanity, in seeking another world as it were. Where science can fail, however, is on the basis of communication of facts and discoveries to the society which remains largely ignorant of the significance of their work. As the media often quips, 2006 was the year that politicians and governments around the world discovered global warming. The exasperating issue here is that scientists have warned of these global-scale threats since the early 1980s. The disparity between observation and communicating the threats to thw world indicates an inner unwillingness to seek a new world until absolutely necessary. It may well be the case that global warming may still be combated with incumbent technologies, but it highlights the human condition of idleness that plagues and punishes society.
The mundane or the status quo is a prevalent aspect of Western society. Ironically, progress exists alongside an acceptance of how things are and the notion of change is often an odious voice, that we persecute those who pronounce it. George Bush senior addressing the Earth Summit stated that the “American way of life is not negotiable”. Now, although this statement may be exactly what the public wants to hear, it does nothing to acknowledge the shared heritage and future of our planet. Indeed, such intransigence is an enemy to the need and right of people to seek a new world. As society moves towards the 22nd century, one must not be fooled in thinking that things will always remain the same. Our planet has a history of altered powers and social directions and it would be myopic to ignore that.
Nothing changes your opinion of a friend so surely as success- yours or his-
The way we feel towards our close friends is continuously modulated by his or her achievements in life. This aspect of human relationships is an important consideration when examining one’s response to another’s progress. On another level, however, the degree of individual maturity will either elicit jealousy or genuine appreciation for that person. In a broader sense, Western Society esteems success as a model that inspires others and generates many positive elements. Success can be taken to other levels, creating jealousy.
The irrevocable nature of the drive to form relationships is based upon attraction to another’s qualities or the desire to be associated with a particular individual or group. That is to say, we choose our networks to satisfy our needs on a personal and societal level. Therefore, when one succeeds, we will naturally feel some emotion. We may vicariously benefit from the fame or prestige of another, or we may even become jealous of the successful party. To state that this is only human misses a deeper reality. This reality is that often the motives for forming relationships are often self-seeking in which case there will be a negative response. Needless to say, the plethora of personality types will create a variety of situations, each varying from the motivations of the individual. Nevertheless, success is not the only thing that alters our opinion.
Behind the event of success lies a certain drive, focus and determination that leads to achieving a particular goal. What may result in the admiration or jealousy of another is not the realisation of success itself, but the personal attributes that make it possible. Hence, what changes our opinions of our friends is their personal growth and stepwise mastery of themselves. Winston Churchill once stated that success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm. Indeed, Samuel Morse was flanked by multiple electronic failures in the attempt to develop the Morse code. In these low points, friends often abandon their colleagues in the attempt to avoid the vicarious trauma. It is when they finally succeed, that there is guilt at their lack of faith and admiration for the strength of character that persists in the face of hardship. The change of opinion, therefore, belies a deeper self-loathing which we direct towards the successful person, persecuting what we fear- the realisation that we have been mediocre in the face of opportunity.
The third aspect of this issue is Western Society’s perception of success and the successful. Indeed, fame and fortune are treacherous paths that often turn on those who manage to pass through the threshold of luck or skill. While success brings material and emotional substance, it also can incite an urge to bring that person down. Often, the media machine feeds off this desire of the common person and will output copious gossip stories that will create wealth fuelled by jealousy. Indeed, if the status quo is surmounted, it challenges us as a whole. The question must be asked whether society will ever free itself from this negative attribute. Unfortunately, it would seem that the human condition is to eventually eschew those who make it, and their state is changed forever.
It is clear therefore that success does play an important role in modulating the level of friendships. There are other levels at which the human mind acts which makes it increasingly difficult to accept. Unless society matures, it can only expect to view successful people as someone other than human.
Thursday 8 February 2007
The difference between a smart person and a wise person is that a smart person knows what to say and a wise person knows whether or not to say it. Quo
The ‘wise vs. smart’ argument has been anonymously brought to the table by some associate in university circles. This person obviously values prudence and discretion over the correct thing to say. This is a difficult challenge in any situation, both knowing the correct thing to say, but then processing the judgement to determine whether to verbalise it. However, it is clear this person has ignored the multiple levels of intelligence or ‘wisdom’ which do not lie solely in words but in vision, in actions, in empathy and in service. This broader appreciation of wisdom is beneficial in creating a more equitable society. Moreover, this issue applies in conflict resolution, in business and the workplace as well as the scientific field which highlights the need for discretion and vision.
On the face of this difference between smart and wise is simply a matter of timing and of prudence. This hides obvious truths in that wisdom is not merely an act of speaking but it is an entire process involving listening, maturity and a degree of experience. Knowing what to say when someone approaches you with a problem is not an easy task either. Marriage counsellors, for instance, build their careers on knowing what to say and framing their words in such a way as to instruct and soothe a troubled spirit. A successful marriage counsellor is not labelled ‘smart’ for their counsel, but the term wise is closer to the mark. There are many cases in which prudence and discretion will allow one to assess the situation more holistically.
The author of this quote has oversimplified the matter of intelligence and wisdom in restricting it to the domain of talking or not talking. Rather, the wise person can also be good their hands, can recognise patterns in statistical data, can fell empathy towards individuals and groups in crisis and the like. Clearly, it takes all sorts to create a society that is self-sustaining in caring for the needs of people. The family unit, too, can be responsible for oversimplifying the notion of wisdom and intelligence. Praise may be generously head on those who perform well in their studies, whereas the mellow composition is ignored. IN all, a more equitable society requires a greater respect for the individual talents and intelligences of the society.
In the context of conflict resolution, there is a great need for prudence and discretion. Furthermore, discretion is one of the key issues in patient-doctor confidentiality that avoids great distress to many parties. IN the business world too, there is a need to be discrete with trade secrets and strategy. The rationale behind this creates bases on which to build competitive advantages. The importance of discretion also applies to the scientific field in which intellectual property is guarded jealously.
It is clear therefore that the ‘wise vs. smart’ argument is oversimplified and applies to narrow situations. Truth in this case is sacrificed for the sake of humour. In order to develop on the ethos of fairness, governments and families alike must appreciate the talents of all people. In all aspects of wider society, however, it has been shown that discretion, while not simply limited to speaking, has an important place in maintaining important states of being.
Don’t flatter yourself that friendship authorises you to say disagreeable things to your intimates. The nearer you come into relation with a person, t
Holmes’ assertion that presumption has no place in an intimate relationship highlights some significant issues about how we should deal with others. To a degree, it is good to recognise and respect the limits of tolerance whether it be between friends or married couples. However, there is a difference between refraining from presumption and ignoring one’s companion’s shortcomings. Indeed, it is also important to have frank and open dialogue in interpersonal situations. In a broader sense, the question is asked of society: does politeness or an excess of political correctness lead us to ignore serious error and allow licence to mediocrity and the like?
Without a degree of tact and a respect for interpersonal boundaries, there is a good chance that a friend, spouse or acquaintance could be offended. Indeed, within a spousal context, a hurt look or an angry word can tip the balance. As people mature, they generally pic lip on the dangers of presumption. This is a realisation that even in relationships, there is not unlimited room for criticism. Robert Frost captures this notion by stating that ‘…good fences make good neighbours’. Thus, to avoid hurting another’s feelings, we should remain courteous with people we like, or else, we risk drawing our own criticisms. There are several reasons, however, that courtesy should not prevent individuals from remonstrating with their intimate associates.
If presumption is hurtful in a relationship, then mediocrity or omitting to be frank with another can be equally unhelpful. Indeed, Holmes’s assertion that enemies will sooner enlighten others to their faults is an undesirable event. It would be much more preferable to hear it from a close friend who can consider their criticism and deliver it carefully and charitably. Such honest and frank dialogue between people is a healthy sign of maturity as well as an acceptance that we live in a world full of people- a world we must share.
The third issues relates to the wider society which is increasingly concerned with political correct speech and behaviour. Such concerns play out in situations such as the workforce in which men are afraid to compliment women on their appearance, for instance. In this case, the society has put itself in chains for the sake of not risking conflict. Unfortunately, it is these chains which also can dissuade or prevent us from acting swiftly in the face of a socially-unpleasant situation. Neighbours who dump their lawn clippings in a river flowing through their property should be made aware of the possible threat their activity is posing to biodiversity, for example. However, the ‘polite’ thing to do would be to ignore it. The problem here with this laissez-faire mentality is that abuses can be ignored and the society becomes increasingly permissive.
It is quite clear therefore that a balance must exist between presumption in a personal relationship and ignoring shortcomings. The former risks isolation and resentment while the latter permits mediocrity. Within society, too, there is a nee dfor a stronger resolve in using tact in the real issues, but identifying a problem and naming it when we experience it.
Holmes’ assertion that presumption has no place in an intimate relationship highlights some significant issues about how we should deal with others. To a degree, it is good to recognise and respect the limits of tolerance whether it be between friends or married couples. However, there is a difference between refraining from presumption and ignoring one’s companion’s shortcomings. Indeed, it is also important to have frank and open dialogue in interpersonal situations. In a broader sense, the question is asked of society: does politeness or an excess of political correctness lead us to ignore serious error and allow licence to mediocrity and the like?
Without a degree of tact and a respect for interpersonal boundaries, there is a good chance that a friend, spouse or acquaintance could be offended. Indeed, within a spousal context, a hurt look or an angry word can tip the balance. As people mature, they generally pic lip on the dangers of presumption. This is a realisation that even in relationships, there is not unlimited room for criticism. Robert Frost captures this notion by stating that ‘…good fences make good neighbours’. Thus, to avoid hurting another’s feelings, we should remain courteous with people we like, or else, we risk drawing our own criticisms. There are several reasons, however, that courtesy should not prevent individuals from remonstrating with their intimate associates.
If presumption is hurtful in a relationship, then mediocrity or omitting to be frank with another can be equally unhelpful. Indeed, Holmes’s assertion that enemies will sooner enlighten others to their faults is an undesirable event. It would be much more preferable to hear it from a close friend who can consider their criticism and deliver it carefully and charitably. Such honest and frank dialogue between people is a healthy sign of maturity as well as an acceptance that we live in a world full of people- a world we must share.
The third issues relates to the wider society which is increasingly concerned with political correct speech and behaviour. Such concerns play out in situations such as the workforce in which men are afraid to compliment women on their appearance, for instance. In this case, the society has put itself in chains for the sake of not risking conflict. Unfortunately, it is these chains which also can dissuade or prevent us from acting swiftly in the face of a socially-unpleasant situation. Neighbours who dump their lawn clippings in a river flowing through their property should be made aware of the possible threat their activity is posing to biodiversity, for example. However, the ‘polite’ thing to do would be to ignore it. The problem here with this laissez-faire mentality is that abuses can be ignored and the society becomes increasingly permissive.
It is quite clear therefore that a balance must exist between presumption in a personal relationship and ignoring shortcomings. The former risks isolation and resentment while the latter permits mediocrity. Within society, too, there is a nee dfor a stronger resolve in using tact in the real issues, but identifying a problem and naming it when we experience it.
Thursday 1 February 2007
Hey people!
Welcome to my GAMSAT forum,
Hopefully this will be some use for all of you,
Please post any comments on written section responses here, or email me with responses you want put up here!
God bless,
Mick Smith
Hopefully this will be some use for all of you,
Please post any comments on written section responses here, or email me with responses you want put up here!
God bless,
Mick Smith
“We see do not see things as they are; we see things as we are” Talmud
The effect of perspective is such that alters events in the mind of people. Talmud joins Einstein in asserting that relative positions (whether real, political or the like) affect our ability to perceive things. However, whereas Einstein’s discovery about Relativity has implications for the universe and motion, Talmud’s assertion relates to people. Certainly, people see things as they believe them, however, this statement ignores the existence of various personality types and their ability to handle facts and information. Hence, in a broader sense, people do not always look out from their perspective to interpret facts, but view a situation from a variety of angles. This ability to deconstruct has implications in marketing right through to personal ambitions.
Human being are naturally focused inwards, generally satisfying their basic instincts before moving on to higher considerations as Maslow’s hierarchy states. Hence, we tend to see things from the way in which it affects us. This means that is impossible to relate objective facts when asked, as we always put our own angle on things. Indeed, police officers answering a scene of a car accident will take statements from several witnesses to get a clear picture of what happened. It goes deeper than this when considering human relationships. It is very hard to be objective about how we feel at any given moment with another. Instead, we are constantly watching the signs and considering the asker’s [sic] feelings and how they will respond. So, in a sense, not only do we see things as we are, we see things as other people see them as a direct consequence of what other people tell us. The bottom line is that we do not get the fully story from anything or in any situation, least of all in human interactions. Rather, there are countless considerations and concerns, memories and hurts that define us which plays out in two girlfriends denying their rear end looks big in that size 10 Lee cut! It is clear that then that although we want (and do) see things from our perspective, it is often not our opinion that matters.
A second point that relates to the ability of humans to process information and the plethora of personality type [sic]. The Myer-Briggs way of classifying people uses these classifications for how people respond to their environment which is regulated by their ability to judge and their level of intuition. Hence, some personality types may be more objective than others. There are indeed many who do not trust their own senses or emotions and prefer the relatively concrete realms of reason and logic for instance. To a degree, this results in more objective people than others. This phenomenon also plays out in the human ability to see hidden meaning behind situations or presented facts. Hence, although a hungry motorist can be attracted by the over-large signs enticing them to consume meat pies and the like, they can equally refuse on the grounds that the marketing push has exaggerated its size and that it would not be good value.
“We make war so that we may live in peace” Aristotle
Human societies have waged war against each other for centuries upon centuries. Wars can involve both entire nations and individual tribes which can shift the balance of power. The victor gains the spoils and, as some have put it, writes the history books. Aristotle asserts that the purpose of war is so that human societies can enjoy peace; that boundaries can be established so that society may be well-ordered. War can involve physical confrontation, but in a broader sense, it means establishing the limits of tolerance and responding when those limits are breached. Certainly, there are cases wherein war eventually results in relative peace, however, looking further will show hat at its core, war can be fuelled by greed and desire that can leave nations bitter and affects multiple generations.
War in terms of physical confrontation can be used to defend against an incumbent aggressor or pre-empt the actions of a rogue nation that seeks to expand its territory. Most certainly, on the surface, the Second World War combated such a move with Allied forces moving to neutralise imperialist forces and after the threat was abated, liberating those nations which succumbed. In this case, peace was afforded. However, the years of bitterness sewed in the hearts of Jewish people, for example, still plays out a campaign for justice. Japanese migrants to nations such as
Establishing one’s limits of tolerance can be instrumental in bringing order and security to a society and individual. It is any nation’s right to expect such boundaries to be respected. If not, they enforce certain requirements and peace reigns. On the surface, this is noble and right, however, there is room to consider what civil liberties are relinquished for the sake of order (‘peace’) and whether this creates animosity or resentment among groups. For instance, Prohibition in the
Finally, while there are many cases in which the term war creates a peace in society or in the world, sometimes the reasons war is waged is simply founded on unrequited desire for territory and resources as well as misguided ideology. This situation common to human society throughout time is a result of human nature and the unceasing needs and wants of personalities. On one side, some such as the current
To conclude, it is clear that in some cases society makes war to ensure peace, and on the surface this seems logical, even plausible. However, the reality is that so much more drives government and the like to breach other’s limits of tolerance. Simple human nature makes it difficult to ensure peace reigns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)