I think compassion makes the difference between humans
and robots. Without compassion and emotion, we would only be thinking logically
all the time. Sometimes, we need a little love in our life. It’s what keeps us
sane a lot of the times. We need to have a balance between our mind and our
heart. With the right amount of emotion and logic, we can most of the time make
proper and right decisions. Of course there will be some times where they both
clash into each other .For example, choosing the love your life and choosing
you dream job thousands of miles away. Are you going to sacrifice your love or
your dream? Both the situations are conflicted with each other. The logical
approach would be to take the dream job; you are doing what you love and receiving
money to keep you financially stable. For the emotional side, choosing the love
of your life would make sense. You are most likely going to be spending the
rest of your life together, why cause any rifts in it? For both sides to
balance each other out, you would need to have a balance of both situations. If
you think from both sides, you can have the best of both worlds. In the
previous situation, you could have a long distance relationship and still keep
the dream job. We need compassion to balance out our thoughts. This goes to
same with rationality. Two halves
combined together make a whole. That is how we receive a harmonic virtue.
Monday, October 21, 2013
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Positives and Negatives
With
the amount of technology and materials we have today, it really is easy to get
any information at the tip of our fingers. Regardless of who you are, there is
information ready for you faster than the speed of light. And with that
information, we are able to analyze where the problem lies in a situation. For example,
an average person needs at least 2 meals to function. If they do not get enough
food in their system, then that person cannot make it through the day. Regardless
of how wealthy or poor you are, you need food to function. However, there are
different methods of obtaining that food to eat. Again, depending on how
wealthy or poor you are, you need some type of job or a way of receiving money
to get access to food. Of course, the wealthy have no problem with this
situation. They have the money to gain food 24 hours a day. The poor on the other
hand, well it isn’t that easy. The word poor itself has a bad connotation. Anyone
having to live with that connotation is obviously not going to have all the hopes
and dreams in the world.
Living in a dog-eat-dog world, we
have grown accustomed to the circumstances that have risen in society. We ignore
the problems which have been with us for several decades. We simply have given
them the blind-eye and no longer see it. Society has done this for centuries,
not because there isn’t an answer for any of the problems but simply because we
do not know where to start. We don’t know
where to dive in first. The problem for taking advantage of the poor is such a
massive hole, so that where ever you start, you end up falling. Tackling such a
big issue will require a big effort and most importantly, will need to the
acceptance of the average and wealthy people. If we don’t get their acceptance
or even acknowledgment from them, there really is no point in continuing
forward. After all, they are the people to keep carrying it onward after the initial
stages.
There have been several social
movements in the past which have tried to disrupt the vicious cycle. While one
movement started off with a main cause, it later developed other movements
which in a way deal with the main topic. It has been five years since the
Occupy Wall Street Movement and we have yet to see a change in our society. The
movement was about the 99% against the 1%. The 1% are basically the wealthy,
the people who have taken most of the country’s private money. There have been
statistics about who exactly were protesting, and I feel that the numbers are
true. According to a 2011 survey1, 49% of the protesters were under
30. This technically shows who actually care about the movement. While there
were many people over the age of 40, the mass majority were the younger
generation. Yes, the movement did stir up quite a motion, saying how it was the
next American Revolution. But here we are years later, still waiting for
change.
There is always a reason for
everything. Whether it is a scientific approach or a spiritual approach, there
is always a reason. And the fact that the wealthy are ahead of the poor is in
fact a no brainer. The ones with more power will obviously be ahead of the
others. Thus being the reason why the wealthy have a slighter edge than the poor.
So the wealthy do deserve what they are receiving. In the end it makes sense.
If we were to hypothetically let the
poor flourish and give them benefits, what would be the outcome of it all?
Would it benefit society in total or would everything still be the same? There
is always a reason why someone is poor. It could be anything; gender, race, environment,
ethics, priorities. But are we not giving them some type of benefit? I am sure
that they are given some type of money from the government. But where is that
money going? Are the poor using that money for education or lively use? I can guarantee
that most of the time, that money is not used properly.
Are we really providing lesser education
to the poor? I feel as if the angle of how you see it matters. If you were to look
at the situation from different sides, you are going to see totally different situations.
From one side, the poor are getting no attention whatsoever and they are very miserable.
On another side, it looks like they are getting the proper attention and materials
but they are not using it properly. Another angle will show how the wealthy and
normal society not caring for the problem. As you can see, there are different approaches
and different ways to see a problem. You will know when a problem is big enough
when all the angles and sides are showing the same thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)