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?
Kindness is gratuitous. You wouldn't call a person who is “kind” for money kind, would you? And if he is “kind” to only a few, then there is some reason why he distinguishes these few from the others. So it's not kindness anymore, but something else – loyalty, sympathy, connection.
You will not be good for everyone, and it is impossible to do good to everyone. Do at least one or two and it will be enough. But first you need to learn to be kind to yourself and then it will be easy and simple to be kind to others
I believe that a kind person, he will be kind to everyone, not just to certain people.They may do this because of benefits or because you are their friend. I believe that a good person radiates kindness to absolutely everything, to people, to nature and to everything that he sees. But such an example was well, a very kind person.And so a good person should just treat others well, respond culturally and not offend without reason
I sincerely do not understand what is included in the concept of “kindness” and since when did it begin to be calculated by the number of” kind ” actions?
It's like in the movie “What men talk about “(I interpret, I'll explain below): a person can be a * * vnom, but he will move his grandmother across the road (even if just for show), and you are all right in your heart, but you sit here and think about the correctness while the first one helps your grandmother cross the road.
As it works with “correctness”, so it works with kindness. The point is not in the quantity, but in the quality of actions.
Pseudo-kind, but for everyone, and a genuinely kind person, but only for the closest ones-these are different people.
I would even say that sincere, non-intrusive kindness deserves respect.
A world built on tolerance, tolerance, democracy, and supposedly universal kindness will one day choke on the bone of hypocrisy.
And many will bite each other.
And people who feel sincere emotions will always be above this turmoil.
So, Ostap suffered…
But I hope my point is clear.
Kindness and kindness are two different things. Helping in evil deeds is complicity in evil, not good. The more good a person does, the better off he will be. Therefore, it is unwise to limit the field of your good.
Human kindness is a relative thing. A good heart is filled with good intentions and pure motives. Showing kindness to just a few people doesn't describe you as an evil or kind person. This means that your social group consists of several people. People get lost in social groups and the mechanism of empathy plays an important role here. The movie “The Brain with David Eagleman” perfectly tells about this. People experience empathy (a sense of compassion, the presence or absence of which encourages us to do good or evil to a person) in their social group of interests. Therefore, if your actions are based on a pure heart and unselfish (personal) motivation, then yes: You are kind regardless of the number of good deeds and the amount of kindness shown. I repeat, in the end, the assessment will be relative and subjective: whether it is good or not.
Sooner or later, a good person, no matter how kind and bright they may be, begins to understand that you go to people with an open heart, and when you return, you have to sew up and wash this very heart. Humans are not grateful creatures, so it may well be that a kind person helps a very small number of them, just so that they don't hurt themselves anymore.