What is encouragment good for?

What is encouragment good for?
I read autobiography of malcolm x where he says that should his teacher encourage him when he was young to be a lawyer, he would not become the leader of the Nation of Islam. The teacher did not encourage him to any such feat but told him to be realistic and become a carpenter or something that would fit to the fact the he was black. Malcom was not disencouraged by this and worked hard to become something. Here we see that encouragment may not work well in certain situations. we all need to be helped and supported in certain age. however, our parents, friends but also enemies want us to be in the way they want us, in the way they think that is best or worst for us. these views may be benefitial for us only when we do not let ourselves be absolutely influenced by their opinions. anything that comes from the outside must be taken seriously but not inevitably helpful to us. taking the influence from outside too seriously may be very harmful for us. in social care we say that any our client whom we try to help is the only specialist about ones own life. we may suggest something but the last words must always be on the client. if we try to help him too much, we harm him. this is naturally a bit paradoxical but it is inevitably true. we may not think that we know better than anyone else what is best for him. this is hard to understand because my occupation is helping others, but I must always tell myself that I should not be helping them to live their lifes according to my view, but helping them to be able to help themselves to live the life they want to live.


Používam Rychlý zápisník

Advertisements
Standard

doing what I think is best for others

doing what I think is best for others
I see more and more in my private life and also in my job as a social care worker that doing what I think is best for other is virtually the worst thing one may do. In my job as a personal assistant, it is necessary to help the people with things they are not able and capable of doing. nevertheless, I can only suggest what is best for them from my perspective because the people I work with have mental handicap, they have lower IQ and are not able to understand some things. here comes the personal assistant and helps them in their deficiencies. this must be done in order to help them, not manipulate them into my way of living or thinking. it sometimes happens that we have a client that wants basically to live on the street. we try to show him the disadvantages of living as a destitute but very often it happens that we try to force him or her into our way of thinking. we all have a home, money, family, friends and so on and we think that this is the best way of living. we sometimes forget that everyone know best what is best for one. same in interpersonal relationships and more concretely in intimate relationships. when a partner tries to think about the other part as unable to decide for oneself, when one wants to manipulate one into thinking that not he but rather the partner knows better what is best for him, then we end up in a very uneven relationships. 

Standard

sterile campsites

I did some travelling last few days and i saw that people spend their vacation in one complex area where they were provided with everything. it is strange that instead of being in the outdoors one is satisfied and content with sanitary place where one has pool instead of see, running trail instead of a path in the woods, gym instead of real work, conveyer belt instead of walking outdoors etc. some people even travel many hours just to stay all their vacation in a tento or a caravan and not going anywhere. I think that by doing this we lose the spontaneity that is necessary for a content realization of ones desires. if we have everything here and now without any surprise, we get too accustomed to nothing new that we are unable then to cope with things that may come to which we may not be able to assimilate. flexibility in life is what matters very much because it is never possible to avoid all incidents that come. I have nothing against spending ones vacation in a caravan,I understand that people have too changeable workload and occupation so that they like to spend their vacation in a completely known are, maybe that is also the reason why people come to the same destination for many years.


Používam Rychlý zápisník

Standard

objectivity vs. emptiness

objectivity vs. emptiness
Sometimes when I read an article about anything basically I like when it is objective, seen from both sides, may perspectives but on the other hand I also think it is important to see it from ones point of view, from a subjective, personal individual and unique prism. On one hand, too great objectivity leads to the elimination of ones ventures of subjctivity and sometimes to saying nothing at all. when one tries to be too objective then it is virtually impossible to convey a message, what one wants to say because the message is always subjective. in other words, there is not point in trying to be too objective because then one loses the point which one wants to convey. nevertheless, objectivity is what leads us to the truth. we need to lose our ego, what hinders us to see the naked truth. if we keep seeing things through the paradigm of -I know the truth- then we can never achieve it.again, a kind of compromise is needed. it is necessary to be objective and try to see the problem from more angles, on the other hand it is equally important to not lose ones individuality and unique insight in the issue. what we need to get rid of is not our individuality but our ego that keeps us from seeing things the way should see. if we keep living in either the menagerie of too objective or too subjective, we can never reach a consesus because we either say nothing, or say too much but here the issue is to not say too much because my ego says so. the way is to say as much as possible but not with selfish desire or shallow un-individualized objectivity.


Používam Rychlý zápisník

Standard

questions for answers one already knows

questions for answers one already knows
I came to an interesting idea. when I debate about something with someone I very often ask questions to which I already know answers. Maybe it is only a kind of idiosyncracy of mine but maybe it is also a kind of egoistical need to be ahead of my partner in the discussion. I do not know, maybe both. when I feel like debating about a certain issue, I feel to be prepared, if I discuss something new, I feel like reading about it at first and then rather discuss what I already know. I think that this kind of discussion may be very fertile in all senses and ways. it is necessary to have some basic knowledge about some issue or topic and only after that is one capable of analyzing it and adding ones opinions. opinions must inevitably be neutral, there is not a bad or good opinion, there is only unknowledge of facts. once I know the facts then my opinion is something build upon those facts. it is necessary to not delve into whether fact are false or true, because then the discussion loses its point and then it is more about history, then about pure dialogue. even facts are never pure truth, we have facts that we have and we may build our bettering of moral values only upon what we have.

for example I like hypothetizing about things which may influence the real world and I dont really like philosophizing about things that are ontologically undebatable, like for example existence of God. I love talking about God and how the change of mind from a nonbeliever to believer may influence the world, how for example Christian values may improve ones moral standards and then concretely change the world subsequently, but I do not really step into discussions whether it is better to be an atheistou​, a catholic, a budhist, an agnostic and I do not pretend that I am capable of definig all these terms because I think that faith and belief as opposed to religion are so subtle and subjective things that they oppose fundamentally from its substance any debate, in other words, it is impossible to define what faith really is and then there is no point in arguing about which faith to belong to is the best. 


Používam Rychlý zápisník

Standard

Relativity of happiness

Relativity of happiness
I read a saying which said: a rich man is one who is happy. I thought to myself that for someone may be happiness money and then this would be tautology. such result would contradict the sayings meaning. it would be ironical and/or paradoxical. It is essential to define happiness, otherwise one answers a question with another question. is there something wrong about having money on the first place? as the headline says, it is all relative. let us anyway dig a bit deeper and delve into the problematics of money. money is basically a tool to exchange things. instead of barter we have money. this is the vital thing for all people to know. money is only a potential to reach happiness. it is like a bowl which can be filled with water(or wine, depending on what you prefer) but the bowl alone is useless, it is only a tool, the more money, the bigger the bowl, the more happiness we may gain. if we stay only on the level of building a big bowl then we may live the whole life in an anticipation of being immensely happy, because our potential to be happy, to exchange money for something really valueable is immense. unfortunately, it is not in fact easy to fulfill the bowl with something really invaluable. it is exchanging values that one can measure for values one cannot. if I fulfill the bowl with cars and houses or other material things, the bowl is not really getting fuller because its potential is virtually wasted, it is used for something which on one hand may be bought with money, but on the other, it is not really what money is destined for, or in other words for what we the people are destined. unfortunately here the cycles closes and comes full circle. the relativity of happiness may be even in building the bowl as big as possible and living with an (un) fulfilled bowl of happiness, but maybe even with fulfilled with dreams and illusions of fulfilling it someday, which in itself might be happiness for someone..


Používam Rychlý zápisník

Standard

Artificial friendship

Artificial friendship
I watched a sci-fi movie called ‘Her’. The plot was about a lonely man going through a divorce and finding a program, artificial inteligence who became his girlfriend. The AI was only a voice that was basically like a human. I realized that the whole story of someone depending on a machine instead of a human, a girl is very depressive. Their ‘friendship’ if it is possible to call it this way later became an intimate relationship. The choice to have a romantic relationship with an AI instead of a real human being is basically cowardice. it is like having sex with a prostitute because there it is enough to pay instead of exerting certain amount of energy in building love and relationship. the same is here, although here it is not about sex but abount mental support. in real relationships one has to build mutual trust and love so that the communication and support can emerge. here it is enough to buy a product that is a friend to someone. this is basically one-sided relationships, same as with prostitutes. This is a status where one has maximum pleasure and no resposiblity. his only responsibility is to pay. it is same as with any other pleasure that is easily gained or bought. it brings one into a cycle where one thinks that pleasure and more sophistically and philosophically happiness(whatever that means) can be bought. this is again a kind of menagerie that some people (in)voluntarily live in and the only way out is to see that such kinds of relationships can bring nothing to me, because everything the people I buy can bring to me is conditioned no on my responsibility but on my ability to bring them pleasure in other way(money). when one falls into love with such a machine, it cannot work vica versa because the relationships between them was from the beginning based not on equality but on barter, which is always inevitably relative. relationships as opposed to an exchange of one thing for another must be equal, they both have to bring certain sacrifice and certain values that cannot be measured in the way that barter allows the merchants to do so. I also realized that the movie was about a perfect friend. the perfect artificial intelligence always did what the user-not partner, although the protagonist was made to believe so, wanted. in reality one has to be reconciled with faults and imperfections of the other party and I would even say that the imperfections is what makes us build and make the relationship better. should one be perfect, I think that any such building of any relationships would be pointless and meaningless. we would easily choose from the amoung of girls or boys we meet every day and would not think with whom it is worth dedicating staying throught ones life time. if I love someone, then such love should not be naìve but nevertheless should strive to be absolute and unconditional, yet not stupid. one has to do things one would normally not do. Love should be reconciled with what the other is and also what the other is not, what I want her to have but what she does not have, this should not make me feel angry, but rather happy because it teaches me to love her nevertheless.


Používam Rychlý zápisník

Standard