Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with this approach. In this case, it is advisable to take into account three important factors.
First: living life in the “as I want, so I live” mode is real, but it is extremely difficult not to break anyone's boundaries (well, except for the situation when a person has become a hermit and lives alone in the forests of the Siberian taiga). And people don't like it when their borders are violated – by the way, including those who “live as I want”. For example: a young person likes to listen loudly to music at home. The neighbors complain. He replied to them: they say, I listen at the allowed time, just in the house the sound permeability is high, so leave me alone, as I want, so I live. Technically, he is right and does not violate anything. And the same young man is indignant when his neighbor from above does something like this with a drill all day (also at the allowed time). But after all, the neighbor also ” lives as he wants.”
Second, this formulation of the life program is often found in very young people who do not have life experience, or in people at the initial stage of depression. In both cases, they often cause significant harm to themselves in the long run, most often to their health and relationships. Such a person is not yet able to understand how unpleasant the payback will be and how much such behavior can change their entire life in a negative way. A significant role is also played by the material factor: in order to then bear responsibility for the many consequences of “as I want, so I live”, significant funds are needed. Therefore, if there are sober people nearby (usually relatives), they try to warn you. But due to the Russian culture of communication, this “warning” is often made in such a form that it causes the opposite effect. There is nothing you can do about it: if a person “lives as he wants” and does not violate anyone's boundaries, but only harms himself, he will still be reproached by those who worry about him. For example: a friend has a 25-year-old son with psoriasis. This is a very unpleasant disease, and if left untreated, it actively develops and eventually makes a person disabled. In the early and middle stages, the guy refused to persuade his mother about prevention and treatment: there is no time, the hospital is poorly fed and boring, he forgets to take medications, etc. Now it is difficult for him to walk, stand, do something with his hands. It can't work. It is difficult to register a disability, and the money there is small. This could have been avoided.
Third, a very small number of people actually know how to live by this rule, and not declare it. And this makes many people envious and angry.
What can be opposed to this approach? And why oppose something? Within its framework, everything is possible: “I live for myself”, “I live for other people”,” I live for animals”,” I live to save the planet Earth”,”I live for God”. Just a person does it consciously and trying not to violate other people's borders. And, of course, understanding that only he is responsible for any of his choices.
Bad – there is no such word when it comes to your own life. We really can live as we want, or rather, as we see fit. If, of course, we are not particularly interested in the result, of course. Otherwise, you will still have to use the experience of previous generations, and simply someone else's experience. This means following the rules. Of course, when it comes to conscious self-restraint, the dictum about your own life and your own mistakes in it is also true, but you are most likely asking about the left-foot rule. And, if I'm right, then conditionally, yes, we can say that such an involuntary otsebyatina is bad, in the sense that it is not very effective. After all, life is one, and each period in it implies certain evolutionary changes, for the implementation of which it is necessary to follow a very specific, and rather rigid algorithm. You need to go to kindergarten when you need it, it promotes socialization, you need to go to school when you need it, it develops, you need to find a profession when the time comes. Make friends, start a family, and have children. All this should be done, and preferably at the optimal time for this. At that age. So that later, it turned out that he was no longer at the same age. And to old age, not to be filled with loneliness and regrets.
Although the true idea of the architect and our role in it, of course, is unknown to anyone, of course. That is why there are individual people who live according to an individual plan and ignore all the rules. Here such people are unlikely to meet, and they do not ask such questions, but as a phenomenon, they certainly exist.