<img src="https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/creed-community.appspot.com/o/images%2F0.69511484942177451636272260507%2Fimage2.webp?alt=media&token=2c5c993f-01e5-43d0-919f-277a08a96073" alt="File preview" width="700" height="466" /> While &quot;Be Yourself&quot; is an appealing message to market and sell. Is it really something that all of us should strive for? And how can anyone actually be themselves in this world? Here we question the liberal ideas of favouring the individual, often over the collective that is society. We discuss and debate whether always putting yourself first is sustainable and the consequences of going ahead with that idea as a society. Take the example of cars on the road. At an intersection, you observe people fighting for their chance to cross, all the while creating a stir that leaves everyone stranded. Of course, you want to go first, why wouldn&#39;t you, but so does the person right next to you. You&#39;re late for your meeting the second time this week, but they have a medical emergency. But since you only focus on yourself, you cut corners and try to drive away first and end up adding to the commotion. The Indian road safety campaign of &quot;Pehle Aap&quot; (Meaning &#39;You First&#39;) is the perfect indication of the need to put others first to avoid literal and metaphorical traffic jams aka, the stalling of society. But one can argue that at least in their homes, people can put themselves first and act the way they want. It is a scale down from society, but even at home, other people are fighting to do things their way. It is not peaceful and sustainable if everyone in that boundary is fighting for their way, there is no structure or protocol, no rules or regulations. <img src="https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/creed-community.appspot.com/o/images%2F0.69511484942177451636272260507%2Fimage3.webp?alt=media&token=1a853465-d14a-4c57-b29a-3065276c559a" alt="File preview" width="700" height="466" /> Let&#39;s zoom out and look at society. Suppose everyone starts acting individually, putting their needs and wants ahead of everyone else. In that case, we create a petri dish of randomness. The chaos that people would say is unnecessary. It would be the death of altruism as a direct result of individualism. Self over service. How long do you think society would operate at the current level of peace once we start acting more individually? I vote, not very long. You do you, act the way you want, but does this mean we have no regard for other people or society? We can extrapolate this idea to all aspects of life, both internal and social. Individually, when you do not operate under personal values or guidelines, life quickly turns to chaos. You end up having to make every decision for yourself at every juncture, and it is draining. And who&#39;s to say that you are well equipped to take every decision even if it only affects you? Turn to social media, and you find almost everyone propagating the ideas of &#39;Do what feels right, &#39;You do you, &#39;Be Yourself&#39;, &#39;Don&#39;t succumb to society&#39;. Paradoxically, if everyone starts adhering to this philosophy, you succumb to the idea of not succumbing to society. A trap to get out of another trap. Liberty is a new religion. One way it manifests is in the noble idea of doing what you want and not pandering to anyone else&#39;s needs or demands; of course, why should you? It is your life, after all. But this outlook itself is a marketing gimmick that brands and companies use to associate themselves with freedom, passion, and strength. You glorify the ideas of freedom and liberty, where you get to do what you want and be satisfied all the time but you still punch in at 9 AM in a dingy office space, where your superiors already line up your work, and you have to report before the end of the day or kiss your bonus goodbye. It does not feel very free, does it? But this is precisely how the majority of the working class live. Don&#39;t get me wrong. There is no vendetta against individualism here. The intention is to highlight that your mundane life is not substandard. You can very well be satisfied in such a life only if you choose not to give in to the idea of &#39;not succumbing to society&#39;. Some people thrive under strict rules and deadlines. Having to make every decision for yourself is a source of anxiety for many people. It makes them accountable for all their actions, and only they are to blame if things go sideways. It is a huge fear. <img src="https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/creed-community.appspot.com/o/images%2F0.69511484942177451636272260507%2Fimage1.webp?alt=media&token=d7dc7932-a03a-43d8-bf28-2b8b4b60e01f" alt="File preview" width="700" height="466" /> People need direction, handholding, and rules to function well in society. The absence of these would cause them to self-destruct or cause a failure of peaceful social structures. The paradox of choice also comes into play here. The more decisions and options we are exposed to, the higher the mental toll they take. Every decision we make has a cost. The more decisions we make, the more depleted our decision-making faculty gets. Our ability to make the right ones declines with every subsequent decision. This phenomenon sneaks up on you, where towards the end of the day, you find yourself making emotional and rash choices that you end up regretting the following morning. Classic case of decision fatigue. Hence it makes sense to follow rules and adhere to norms. It is, of course, if the rules themselves don&#39;t come at a personal cost. Exposure to all these choices and decisions also then lead to widespread anger and frustration. People will be drained of fighting internal and external battles all the time. At times it is not only okay to give up decision making, but rather it is warranted. It is not meant to advocate mass rulings and strict adherence but to question the utopian idea of liberty itself. Is having the liberty to choose everything for yourself ultimately beneficial to you and society, or is it just an impressive vision to sell? What do you think? Share your thoughts with us in the comments.

Paradox of Being Yourself

<img alt=""src="https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/creed-community.appspot.com/o/images%2F0.074824149842566581638887435966%2Fimage1.webp?alt=media&token=201d9b90-989d-4d77-b83e-475416b66f0b">Privacy is a misconstrued concept. It is often confused with disguising information.News seekers and agenda makers always try to dig out information even when it needs to be safeguarded and kept unexposed. Sensitive data should be handled with caution and should not become a dinner table conversation.The media prevalent in the world today is doing more than just its only job, informing. It has opinions, digs out sensitive information, and invades privacy.A camera, the strongest tool at a media person’s disposal, is used as a means to justify their constant unethical and irrelevant interference in someone's life.There are countless incidents of media persons, especially in the paparazzi and tabloid culture, going out of their way to click photographs of events and persons.To get coverage, they miserably fail to respect the line drawn and identify the incident as news as per their convenience. These practices are loathed by those getting photographed.  It is one thing to generate content to inform, and a completely different thing doing it for mere sensationalism and garnering attention. This practice needs to be addressed not just by the people directly on its radar but also by those consuming that brand of content; the audience.Many celebrities have come out and spoken about how disturbing yellow journalism can be. The content is driven by what seems engaging enough to give it a read or a click. It doesn’t require much credibility, quality and accuracy.What is Yellow Journalism?Yellow journalism refers to the act of milking a story or news incident for sensational content to attract consumers.In this practice, the main focus of the newsmaker shifts from identifying and disseminating newsworthy content to sensationalized media and exaggerated headlines.Yellow journalism is mostly practised in tabloid culture and Page 3 content.Is it okay to step into boundaries in lieu of reporting using a camera?Tabloid culture becomes unhealthy and toxic when it starts to interfere with the daily functioning of the people it covers. These visuals often start butchering personal spaces, even in times of crisis. Of late, paparazzi have been known to be highly insensitive towards those in distress.Lately, the media has also been known for bombarding people with cameras to get clear shots and high definition pictures. None of them qualifies for reporting the incident. Disturbing video content has surfaced where the celebrities and kin were photographed, filmed and even interviewed by the news seekers in rather unfortunate times.It is not relevant at all. Nobody deserves this type of interference in their lives, irrespective of their popularity status.The Instances There have been incidents where paparazzi have faced backlash and were held answerable for their behavior and violation of civic decency.Case in point, when Princess Diana took Harry and William on holiday to Austria. She wanted a quiet family skiing holiday and didn’t even want any bodyguards. Diana wished to be free from the constraints associated with the British Royal System, including the press. Diana frequently took control of the press relations herself. She came out of lunch, walked up to the camera persons and said that the lenses are very daunting to her children and can they please respect her children’s space and leave them alone.We see paparazzi intrusion in the lives of famous people every day. The situation seems even worse here. With a large number of people that are low on jobs but loaded with cheap internet access, the fascination of getting a glimpse into a celebrity’s life is much higher. Be it the hysterical obsession of clicking a celebrity child’s photographs or the agonizing video coverage of a celebrity’s personal life.<img alt=""src="https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/creed-community.appspot.com/o/images%2F0.074824149842566581638887435966%2Fimage2.webp?alt=media&token=411a4e1b-5945-4aa6-b14c-323ce7cff156">Why should this bother you, even when you are not in the public eye?  Being an ordinary person, you might never face such a situation and thus, not understand its repercussions. But you do understand privacy. It is a fundamental right that is also innate in humans.The invasion of personal space causes a normal human mind to get perturbed by insensitive media trespassing. It is the psychology of the human mind that makes us empathize with the person. These acts have the power to weaken an individual’s belief in the companionship that society has to offer.The whole narrative of incident reporting rests upon the curiosity of the news seekers and serving the facts with opinions, viewpoints and selective perception. We, as the audience, do not generally get to witness the source of every incident or news. Thus the media that emerges from the place of the incident becomes our source.The media’s job is to decide what is newsworthy and what is not before generating audio-visual content about it. It's their responsibility to generate and circulate actual news and facts and not use the incident to attract consumption.Your share in easing the situationStating the problem is just the first step of solving it. The practice of digging out sensitive information about someone in the name of news coverage is also fuelled profusely by the audience’s curiosity. We are that audience.The only way such practices can be stopped is if we as the audience stop pedestalizing famous people and stop keep a keen eye on their personal lives.What we can do is merely overlook the everyday routine of the rich and famous and try to focus on their work to reach where they are, if we want to take an interest at all.Have you ever pondered the implications of such treatment on the human mind?

The Duty of Understanding Right to Privacy

<img src="https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/creed-community.appspot.com/o/images%2F0.392732045901529551628072884675%2FTOXIC%20POSITIVITY_ShilpaSivadas_1.webp?alt=media&token=85238d46-123a-40e8-9e40-2d1d9ec879d5" alt="" width="764" height="509" />The wise Mark Twain once said, "Too much of anything is bad, but too much good whiskey is barely enough&rdquo;. We all say that until we've had a wild night of too much whiskey to drink and wake up the next day with a vile hangover, only to realize that it&nbsp;really&nbsp;was&nbsp;too much&nbsp;whiskey. I like to compare positivity to Mark Twain's whiskey. They both sound like things that could never go wrong, but they can go wrong in so many ways in actuality.&nbsp;It is a common misconception that being constantly and excessively positive is excellent for your mental health. However, the truth is far from it, and people don't always realize that it is crucial to experience the complete range of emotions, both positive and negative. Positive thinking is immensely helpful in coping with stress, and it can enhance resilience, but dismissing all negative emotions and overgeneralizing positivity is where it gets toxic. Toxic positivity or forced happiness is the expectation of being zestful and happy, even in the face of adversities. It comes with myriad repercussions; repressing emotions can cause anxiety, depression, sleeplessness, and a general deterioration of mental health. Your unsightly optimism can lead to failures that could have been avoided.&nbsp;Most importantly, negative emotions make you human. As humans, it is nearly impossible to feel no negative emotions, and these serve as coping mechanisms in various life events. No fight in life comes with only positive vibes, and your obsession with positivity could stop you from working towards social justice due to negative emotions such as anger and fear. That is not what we woke folks want now, right?So how does one distinguish good positivity from toxic positivity? Here are some ways to recognize that your positivity has turned toxic:1) You avoid and run away from negative emotions - If you feel awkward whenever you feel sad, angry, scared, or jealous, and if you prefer to simply replace them with positive thoughts instead of "feeling it out", you need to watch out. In the wise words of my therapist, avoidance works, but only temporarily. Imagine shoving a ton of things into a tiny drawer to clean up a messy room. You can overstuff the drawer and shut it tight, but it will only be a while before the drawer bursts open and makes a bigger mess than before. Similarly, these emotions may go away temporarily through avoidance, but they can come back stronger or may even last longer.&nbsp;2) You try hard to find positives in every bad situation - Every cloud may not have a silver lining. Still, if you are persistent in finding one for the sake of staying optimistic, you're getting close to toxic positivity. Everybody goes through tough times, and it is only realistic to say that you cannot always find immediate positives.&nbsp;3) You guilt yourself and others for feeling negative emotions - Everyone has heard phrases like "just move on" or "don't be such a baby" or "be a man" (toxic masculinity alert!). These phrases not only dismiss negative emotions but also lack empathy and compassion. Humans often bond over negative emotions, experiences, and trauma and avoiding these can stop you from connecting with others.&nbsp;4) Overgeneralizing "it is what it is" - People often simplify the idea of stoicism and accept everything without feeling the right emotions for it. Maybe what you are going through is immutable, but that does not mean you don't acknowledge the emotions that come with it. Genuine acceptance can only come after you go through the tsunami of emotions caused by the trauma.&nbsp;5) Frequently minimizing your and other people's experiences - Saying things like "it could be a lot worse" or offering overly positive affirmations at a time of crisis is a telltale sign of toxic positivity. Everyone goes through unique experiences in life, and you cannot measure these emotions on a scale.<img src="https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/creed-community.appspot.com/o/images%2F0.392732045901529551628072884675%2FTOXIC%20POSITIVITY_ShilpaSivadas_2.webp?alt=media&token=7093ff6c-567c-4276-9e5e-d4f173804cde" alt="" width="765" height="510" />It may almost sound like a lot of our supposedly positive habits are toxic, right? Does that make you a toxic person? Not if you are willing to acknowledge and change these habits. The key to changing these is simple - do not chase the emotions away. Make it a habit to feel every emotion, even the negative ones. Try to get through the feelings rather than getting over them. It is easier said than done, but it is worth the effort. You will notice that your negative emotions are short-lived, and you will feel liberated and recharged, just like you do after a good cry. When you genuinely experience every emotion, you will have a whole new perspective of real, unforced, and unfettered positivity.&nbsp;

Toxic Positivity – The Bad Side of “Being Too Positive”

<img src="https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/creed-community.appspot.com/o/images%2F0.0202072586930484021635362946595%2Fimage1.webp?alt=media&token=754af849-7759-4104-ad5a-eb79787e56b8" alt="File preview" width="500" /> In the final article in this 3 part series, we will discuss whether or not society really needs morals in order to function, as well as the principles of justice and equality when making moral considerations. <h3> Do We Really Need a Defined Set of Morals for Society to Function? </h3> No ethical or moral system is likely to be perfect in all cases. There are simply too many different possible scenarios along with their variables that can arise for any single value system to provide perfect solutions all of the time. If a set of moral principles is too vague, then the answers it offers become unclear. But if an ethical system becomes too precisely delineated, everyone becomes weighed down with expansive legalism that is difficult to follow. Human beings are social animals by nature, and there are currently 7.8 billion of us living together. Suppose certain classes of people acted only as ends unto themselves, such as the higher human beings that Nietzsche refers to. How would we collectively begin to achieve any sort of overall harmony of value judgments? How would this affect how we treat each other? For instance, would it be permissible for a &lsquo;higher man&rsquo; to treat other persons from the herd however they pleased - since their moral judgments are far beyond what lesser individuals can comprehend? Any student of 20th-century history quickly realizes how problematic and dangerous such ideas have the potential to become. Or are there universal moral principles that supersede the individual&rsquo;s will? While adhering to an established system of morals might diminish the individual&#39;s autonomous range, perhaps a different sort of freedom might arise. Would it be possible to free the self in service of a greater good instead of being slaves to our impulses or cyclically pursuing our own ends? Additionally, while the idea of great men creating their own values and pushing the envelope of morality sounds good in theory, how would it work relative to history? Since little is truly new under the sun, and everything that exists now has essentially come before in some form or another, how would someone trying to create their own values manage to do anything truly unique? Somewhere, sometime, someone on this planet has likely been confronted with a similar moral choice that mirrors almost any that we could face. And since the energy of life on this earth remains interconnected as it moves through time, it would seem that we are simply playing a temporary role in continuing a much larger cycle of cause and effect. Learning from life often involves making mistakes and trying not to repeat them. This process continues the cycle of growth that leads us away from stagnation or decay. To see clearly and learn from the mistakes of others without suffering the same fate is wisdom. Perhaps the moral insights that will become most valuable to us are those that we discover both from the real pain of our mistakes along with looking to the cumulative wisdom of others. <img src="https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/creed-community.appspot.com/o/images%2F0.0202072586930484021635362946595%2Fimage3.webp?alt=media&token=093e5089-0370-4744-b7c9-10e334f29d6f" alt="File preview" width="700" height="466" /> <h3> The Moral Issues of Equality and Justice </h3> Finally, perhaps by considering the relationship of morality to other integral principles, we can better balance personal freedom and social responsibilities. One of the foundational principles of ethics is that of equality in regards to justice. Because while all human beings may not be physically, intellectually, socially, or financially equal, all are endowed with a basic set of rights. All are equally deserving of moral consideration. If you remove this fundamental principle from any ethical equation, it will likely result in some form of inequality and exploitation of a person (or group) by another. And a moral system based on exploitation isn&rsquo;t much of a moral system at all. <ul> <li> Any system that allows certain individuals the absolute freedom to ignore the rights of the larger, collective group or target the rights of other individuals is explicitly not ethical. </li> <li> But the systemic process of allowing groups in power to overreach and interfere with certain innate personal freedoms of individuals (thereby limiting their potential) is also harmful and unethical. </li> </ul> Is there some system that might better balance the rights of various individuals from all groups? &nbsp;No system will be perfect for all members since there are so many diverse situations and characteristics. But using universal principles of some kind to formulate a baseline of ethical standards applicable to all must occur to ensure fundamental rights. <img src="https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/creed-community.appspot.com/o/images%2F0.0202072586930484021635362946595%2Fimage2.webp?alt=media&token=645165b3-3f48-4c44-a0ff-d44e6ebf4138" alt="File preview" width="700" height="466" /> <h3>Article Summary:</h3> <ul> <li> If we fail to thoroughly examine the validity of our most deeply held values, to recognize where they come from and why they are important, they become hollow and meaningless over time. When values lose their integrity, it leads to blind obedience, unquestioning conformity, and moral stagnation. </li> <li> However, suppose we set ourselves adrift in a sea of moral relativism or begin to say that there are no universal moral truths that are greater than our own free will. In that case, we risk becoming lost in ourselves and falling prey to our biases and desires. We risk creating a hell on earth while trying to fashion a paradise of our own design. </li> </ul>

Part 3 of 3: The Development of Morality - Nietzsche vs Kohlberg

<img src="https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/creed-community.appspot.com/o/images%2F0.067500485203443981630900523657%2FVirtue%20ethics%2CUtilitarianism%20and%20Deontology_1.webp?alt=media&token=e33a80b9-8b93-47b4-aeab-48fcb9e30288" alt="File preview" width="740" height="493" /> Morality is a term coined to separate the good or bad thoughts, the right and wrong actions. Morality is subjective; many great philosophers like Aristotle, Plato, and Kant have given us their approach.&nbsp; To understand the basics of morality, let us take an example, you find a 20 dollar note on the floor, the exact amount required for you to buy that pretty new top you saw yesterday. Here, morality will guide you to ask the people around if they lost a twenty, and if nobody claims it, you give it to the police. Even if it is just a twenty note, it is immoral to keep it with you and spend it. The three main approaches to morality are Virtue ethics, Utilitarianism and Deontology.&nbsp; 1.VIRTUE ETHICS: Virtue ethics theory was given to us by Aristotle. It emphasizes virtues and moral character. It says happiness is our highest goal, and it is achievable by cultivating moral virtues. Once we have developed moral integrity, they can be employed automatically. Let us get a deeper understanding by taking an example: You visit your friend's house for dinner, she has recently learnt how to cook, and wants your opinion. Upon taking the first bite, you feel like the flavour is very off; it is bitter and salty. She is looking at you with excitement, waiting for an opinion. You are in a dilemma; being a good friend, you believe if you are honest, she can work harder and improve, but it might end up hurting her feelings. If you lie, she will be happy, and it might make her day. After contemplating the consequences, you decide to be honest with her. You chose honesty; you took a moral decision. As per virtue ethics, it soon becomes a personality trait if you decide to be honest at times.&nbsp; Virtue ethics can also be summed up as "fake it till you make it." 2.DEONTOLOGY: "An action, to have moral worth, must be done from duty."- Immanuel Kant. Immanuel Kant is one of the most famous philosophers associated with this approach. In Deontology, one is given a set of duties based on what their intuition believes is right and wrong, and one obeys them. Deontology eradicates subjectivity by focusing only on following the duties and not weighing the consequences of one's action. For example, you are a software engineer, and only you know how to hack into the system to stop the missile launch. Hacking is unethical; even if it might save thousands of lives, Deontology will prevent you from hacking. As previously stated, it does not weigh the consequences of the action and only focuses on following the suitable duties. 3.UTILITARIANISM: In Deontology, we studied that we need to obey the duties irrespective of the consequences; however, in utilitarianism, it is otherwise. It believes in taking the action that has the outcome benefiting the majority. It is a species of consequentialism; It evaluates the activity on the possibility of its consequence. In utilitarianism, happiness or pleasure are the only things that have intrinsic value. Continuing the example from Deontology, if we apply the utilitarian approach to the situation, it would suggest that since the one immoral activity will allow thousands of lives to be happy, the software engineer should go ahead.&nbsp; However, the only limitation here is that we cannot always be accurate on the possible outcome. The engineer might hack into the system successfully but fails to prevent the missile launch.&nbsp;So which school of thought do you think we should live by?&nbsp; Share your thoughts in the comments.

Virtue Ethics, Deontology and Utilitarianism

<img src="https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/creed-community.appspot.com/o/images%2F0.0321242839574068561628682884185%2FThe%20History%20of%20Art_1.webp?alt=media&token=492fd2a3-6df3-4bc5-850d-ba4b2dcfe727" alt="File preview" width="741" height="493" /> There have been times where words were not sufficient to convey a message; in such a situation, one sought help from art. Art is a constant, a means of communication for humans from the stone age to the twenty-first century. Art, along with humankind, has significantly evolved.&nbsp; We can broadly classify the different phases of evolution in the art world in eight periods: 1.STONE AGE ART(30,000 BCE- 3,000 BCE): The earliest art belongs to the stone age period. As the name suggests, stones were prominent. Petroglyphs, carving on hard protected surfaces like cave walls, were the most common. People refer to the period as prehistoric art as it existed before recorded history.&nbsp; We further divide the stone age into three periods; with development in tools observed over time: <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;">Paleolithic period (30,000 BCE-10,000 BCE)</li> </ul> &nbsp;The term palaeolithic means old stone age. The artworks of this phase mainly consist of small sculptures, carvings on walls and paintings. In this period, people put stone tools to use for something other than survival for the first time. The structures were mainly figurines of animals, small but realistic.&nbsp; The primary materials used were ivory, bone, stone, and clay&mdash;Bhimbetka Petroglyphs, the oldest known prehistoric art discovered in India's quartzite caves.&nbsp; <img src="https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/creed-community.appspot.com/o/images%2F0.0321242839574068561628682884185%2FThe%20History%20of%20Art_2.webp?alt=media&token=28fd4ef4-f17d-4aed-9f73-9bc51049b768" alt="File preview" width="740" height="555" /> Bhimbetka Petroglyphs&nbsp;&nbsp; <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;">Mesolithic period (10,000 BCE- 3,000 BCE)</li> </ul> &nbsp;This period marked the end of the ice age and a switch to more temperate conditions. Due to this change, the humans had to adapt to a new type of living, leaving behind their caves. They switched to more settled agricultural communities. The art now provided keener details and better narration. Ceramics also started gaining popularity in this period. The most intriguing artwork of this time consists of rock art, similar to the palaeolithic period on vertical cliffs or natural rocks. <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;">Neolithic period (8,000 BCE- 3,000 BCE)</li> </ul> &nbsp;In this era, weaving and pottery became prominent as civilization settled and people shifted from nomadic to permanent settlements. The most exciting creations from this time were the architecture that featured large stone structures called the megaliths. This period, however, mainly focused on pottery, the majority found in the region of Mesopotamia.&nbsp; 2.BRONZE AGE ART (3,000 BCE-1,100 BCE)&nbsp; This period highlights the production of bronze, an alloy of copper and tin. With advancements in the production of metalwork, there was a rise in skilled workers. The use of stone became less popular. The art world saw some agile development as metals were more flexible, the sculptures and artefacts made were more detailed and charming. People observed the earliest art in the Mesopotamia region, Sumerian art. Writing first began in Mesopotamia as the nation greatly prospered, and people started focusing on art, literature, culture and religion. Egyptian art also rose in the form of monumental architecture. Lost wax casting was one of the most common ways used for making sculptures out of bronze. The oldest cast bronze sculpture is the 'DANCING GIRL' in Mohenjo Daro. <img src="https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/creed-community.appspot.com/o/images%2F0.0321242839574068561628682884185%2FThe%20History%20of%20Art_3.webp?alt=media&token=73ec9296-48f2-4e19-9ecc-28561fbcbf7a" alt="File preview" width="400" height="776" /> The Dancing girl in Mohenjo Daro 3.IRON AGE ART (1,100 BCE-200 BCE) As the name suggests, the use of iron became more prominent in this period. It was the last phase of the prehistory period. It was more economical to mine iron than bronze, and it was more substantial, making it extremely popular and abundantly available. In this reign, greek art gained attention in the Mediterranean basin. However, near the end of the iron age, greek art started declining, and Persian and Egyptian art became more dominating. 4.MEDIEVAL ART (5th- 15th century) Medieval art was produced in Europe during the middle ages; it includes sculptures, paintings, illuminated manuscripts, mosaics, and metalwork.&nbsp; Based on time, we can classify medieval art into: <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;">The Romanesque (11th-12th century)&nbsp;</li> </ul> Its name comes from the fact that its primary basis is on early Christian art in Rome. The architecture built in this reign, mainly churches, monasteries and temples, symbolized the growing wealth in Europe and the power of church monasteries. The characteristics of these buildings are thick stone walls, semi-circular arches with durable construction. Sculptures were also famous; made out of stone, based on the iconography of the bible. Thousands of artisans from Rome and Greek created an eastern, Christian image known as byzantine art. Other types of popular art include illuminated manuscripts and stained glass.&nbsp; <img src="https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/creed-community.appspot.com/o/images%2F0.0321242839574068561628682884185%2FThe%20History%20of%20Art_4.webp?alt=media&token=21720770-9d02-4897-a52c-fd2ce753cc65" alt="File preview" width="400" height="515" /> Chriatian Byzantine Art <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;">The Gothic (12th-15th century)&nbsp;</li> </ul> It derives its name from the Goths that ruled France. The gothic architecture offered revolutionary structural advancements such as flying buttresses, ribbed vaults(formed by two arches across diagonally) and decorative pinnacles, contributing to taller and lighter buildings. Sculptures in the gothic period were more realistic images; they characterized angels, saints and biblical figures.&nbsp; Paintings also became more lifelike, and with the gradual development in Europe, artists soon started taking an interest in non-religious subjects.&nbsp; 5.THE RENAISSANCE (14th-16th century) The renaissance dominated Italy and the majority of Europe; the people in this reign made their appearance different from that of the medieval period. There was a great revival of learning of ancient Greece and Rome. The artist started rejecting the byzantine form of art and preferred a more realistic depiction of humans and space. The art from this time also represented other aspects, such as mythology. Some of the most famous masters of this time are Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo and Raphael.&nbsp; 6.THE POST-RENAISSANCE (16th-18th century)&nbsp; This reign was followed by: <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;">Mannerism (16th century)&nbsp;</li> </ul> Mannerism, opposed to naturalism in art, was notable for its artificiality. The mannerist artist took paintings established during the renaissance and added a twist by exaggerating them, giving them an extravagant aesthetic to classicism. <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;">Baroque (17th-18th century)&nbsp;&nbsp;</li> </ul> The main principles of art in this reign was extravagance, ornateness and decorated details. The link between the catholic church and this art form was inseparable.&nbsp; <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;">Rococo (mid 17th-18th century)&nbsp;</li> </ul> Rococo, unlike Baroque, emphasized opulence, gratefulness and lightness. It emerged in France. Unlike another art form, it depicted light-hearted romance and carefree aristocratic life.&nbsp; 7.MODERN ART (18th-19th century) The Industrial Revolution led to the birth of modern art. In previous art forms, the art depicted religion and mythology. However, in the 19th-century, artists created art based on their personal experience and their chosen topics. The art produced in this reign showcased the artists' interest in re-imagining, interpreting and rejecting previous art styles.&nbsp; Some famous artworks are Les Demoiselles d'Avignon by Pablo Picasso, The Large Bathers by Paul C&eacute;zanne and Impression, Sunrise by Claude Monet.&nbsp; The different types of modern art are:&nbsp; <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;">Impressionism&nbsp;</li> </ul> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;">Post Impressionism&nbsp;</li> </ul> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;">Fauvism&nbsp;</li> </ul> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;">Expressionism&nbsp;</li> </ul> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;">Cubism&nbsp;</li> </ul> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;">Surrealism&nbsp;</li> </ul> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;">Abstract Expressionism&nbsp;</li> </ul> &nbsp;8.CONTEMPORARY ART (21st century) Contemporary art means art; painting, sculpture, photography, video art, installation and production are performed today. It allows the artist to reflect upon the social issues related to humanity in today's world. High-end technology and cultural diversity globally surrounds artists in today's time. This form of art stands out because of its lack of organization, uniformity and ideology.&nbsp; The different types of contemporary art are: <img src="https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/creed-community.appspot.com/o/images%2F0.0321242839574068561628682884185%2FThe%20History%20of%20Art_5.webp?alt=media&token=460edc0d-69c6-4de1-a10a-74c749f22f79" alt="File preview" width="740" height="555" /> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;">Pop art&nbsp;&nbsp;</li> </ul> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;">Photorealism&nbsp;</li> </ul> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;">Conceptualism&nbsp;</li> </ul> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;">Minimalism&nbsp;</li> </ul> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;">Performance art&nbsp;</li> </ul> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;">Installation art&nbsp;</li> </ul> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;">Earth art&nbsp;</li> </ul> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;">Street art&nbsp;</li> </ul>

The History of Art

<img src="https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/creed-community.appspot.com/o/images%2F0.52485430586477431631036480229%2F4ec66f95-1f32-48ae-b199-3932d03a2afd.webp?alt=media&token=e0c4b6a0-2fec-46ae-9505-ffff84cfb689" alt="File preview" width="700" height="466" /> People have always equated romantic relationships to monogamy. They consider love as a feeling that occurs between no more than two people. When a person argues to be in love with more than one person, we tend to brush these feelings off as a crush or an infatuation. But this is not always true. What if you love more than one person equally and passionately? If love is a choice, why can't we choose to love two people equally? Also, is loving your partners equally possible or even necessary? Love is a complicated emotion. A person typically loves more than one person in their lifetime, including their parents, siblings, pets, and friends among others. You are also attracted to more than one person at a time. But to understand whether you can love more than one person, the key is to distinguish love from attraction. When you are attracted to someone, your body goes through a series of chemical reactions that result in a powerful yet temporary sense of connection. Love is different because it takes time to develop and lasts longer. Upon understanding the difference between genuine love and attraction, we look at the idea of being in love with two people simultaneously. Falling in love with two people is not easy; it requires immense patience and investment. However, several experienced individuals have stated that it is certainly possible. You can fall in love with two people for entirely different reasons, and both these reasons could be equally valid. You fall in love with one person for the way you get adventurous with them, and you love another person for the way you feel safe around them. With both of them, your brain releases hormones that make you fall in love. Ultimately, love is a choice at some point. For the same reason, you will have to choose the next step by considering the various factors at play.&nbsp; Assume you are in a polyamorous relationship. It is commendable if one does manage an arrangement that allows a happy polyamorous relationship. But is it possible to love both/all partners equally? More importantly, is it necessary? Let us look at a polyamorous relationship where a person has two partners. The person can surely love both partners equally. If love is a choice, we can choose how to love our partners. But if you examine the emotions involved while falling in love, this statement may not hold because, well, emotions are uncontrollable.. But why is it necessary to love both partners equally? It isn't. Loving two people in an equal sense would mean offering the same things to both partners or doing everything twice. Doing this is not only impractical but also unnecessary. Equity is what matters in such relationships. Both the partners may need entirely different things from you.&nbsp; One partner may require a lot of alone time, while the other would love to spend most of their spare time with you. In such a case, spending more time with the latter does not mean you love them more, but you provide both the partners with what they need. One partner may want to trek with you, while the other prefers spending time indoors. Having a stay-cation with the former and a long trek with the latter would only result in two overwhelmed and annoyed partners. Thus, equity needs to be established in such relationships, and not equality. Every relationship is distinct and this is true even with polyamorous relationships. You will deal with two distinct people with various needs and preferences. Take the example of your parents; you loved them both equally, but they both had different expectations from you. Applying numbers to relationships may not be the wisest choice in polyamory. "Equity, not equality" is the way to go with these relationships to keep everyone happy.&nbsp;

The Why's and How's of Loving Two People Equally

Alarming facts about the climate crisis are now emerging every day. We are now hearing calls to action to save the one and only Planet Earth. That generates anxiety, something that is coined Eco-Anxiety. Eco Anxiety or climate change anxiety&nbsp;is not a recent phenomenon. It&rsquo;s an anxiety about the future and trauma that we haven&#39;t faced yet, but it will come our way. Climate change can be overwhelming, especially while following a waterfall of news and science every day. When UN reports are published, a sense of doom or hopelessness settles on us. Fear and hopelessness about what is happening related to the climate and how it will impact us, our families, friends, and future generations. What elevates it from usual fears and stress about our planet to anxiety is hopelessness, feeling stuck, not knowing what to do, or feeling like there is nothing we could do. There is no psychiatric definition of eco-anxiety. It&rsquo;s not a type of disorder. Still, it is a new term that has come up to classify many of these fears. The American Psychological Association described Eco anxiety or climate anxiety in 2017 as a chronic fear of environmental doom. &nbsp;The hopelessness and worry associated with eco anxiety can affect our daily life; can stop us from doing the hard but vital work of reducing fossil fuel use and preparing for the consequences. It&rsquo;s harder when it comes to public health, preparedness and emergencies. We are wired to respond to what is happening right now, not what will happen 5, 10, or 20 years down the road. Climate change is real and is coming for all of us. One would be highly mistaken if they consider themselves exclusive of it. It may be later for some than others, but it is definite to happen. We could be mere spectators of the impending doom or the ones fighting for literally a better future. Small but significant changes that we can make in our lives could benefit the planet and us. The expected results could be miraculous and require us to take a step back and contemplate our actions and acknowledge the value of the environment. Eco anxiety is associated with the real trauma experienced by people living on the frontlines of climate change: people living in the areas with poor air quality or in the paths of hurricanes or experiencing extreme heat events without access to air conditioning. Anything that happens in the environment tends to impact our most vulnerable populations the most, kids, the elderly or people who don&rsquo;t have the means to relocate easily. It&rsquo;s those communities that take the hardest hit by natural disasters, changes in the water supply, drought or extreme heat or cold. People in those communities are experiencing higher rates of stress, anxiety or hopelessness. Eco-anxious people are aware of the consequences of the things that the planet earth and the environment are going through, drastically impacting their lives. <h3>Biodiversity loss</h3> <img src="https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/creed-community.appspot.com/o/images%2F0.189088762619574751636274162024%2Fimage1.webp?alt=media&token=dfe200ed-e45c-4783-8078-2118e60c0ccb" alt="File preview" width="700" height="466" /> A million species are at risk of extinction from climate change, overfishing and pollution. The rate of biodiversity loss does justice to what makes us fear the destruction of our planet and our generation&rsquo;s future. The UN estimates&nbsp;that we have approximately 12 years to change everything to avoid complete climate catastrophe. The primary source of this stress is more from the fact that despite climate change being real, people don&rsquo;t care that the earth is on fire. Everything caused by climate change is going to get worse. <h3>The Latent Effect</h3> Eco anxiety isn&rsquo;t always the fear of an environmental incident that can happen in future. It can be what is going on right now as well. &nbsp;Due to selective environmental activism across the world, climate change impacts aren&rsquo;t felt the same by every community. Frontline communities are dealing with climate change right now. For instance, a person living in one of the small indigenous communities around the world that does not have safe access to drinking water, the level of anxiety associated with environmentalism is entirely different than someone who is just worried about the future state of our planet. &nbsp; <img src="https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/creed-community.appspot.com/o/images%2F0.189088762619574751636274162024%2Fimage2.webp?alt=media&token=6898b364-961c-4f33-a34a-bae837fe054f" alt="File preview" width="700" height="466" /> <h3>Anxiety to Action</h3> For most, a renewed sense of community is vital. Shared responsibility about acting together for improving the planet&rsquo;s state is what could lead us out of this horror. <ol> <li> Facing Reality Facing the reality of climate change is the first step to working on it. Living in a state of denial has led the planet to what it is today. </li> <li> Analyzing the Impact We as humans are the ones to take the biggest hit from the climate catastrophe; thus, we have to analyse the impact of our daily actions leading to doomsday. We have to educate ourselves in this area to proceed towards damage control. It is blatant ignorance if we do not acknowledge our wrongdoings and dread the impact. </li> <li> Breaking the Socially Constructed Silence The stigma needs to be broken down. The primary sources of environmental pollutants are industrial by-products, which leave massive carbon footprints and emissions. We need to take precedence over the environment instead of promoting industries. </li> <li> Know the Reward The images that come to our minds when we think about the future of the environment are dystopian. That negates our spirits and will to fight for a better tomorrow. Knowing our reward would greatly uplift our morals in this challenge. We need to talk about thriving, not surviving. Journaling about and painting the world that we want to live in is one of the things that can help sail smoothly. </li> <li> Open to Change To steer the climate change process, we must change ourselves. The current situation has prevailed due to inappropriate and unfortunate changes that we made in our lives over the years. Lifestyle changes, as evident as plant-based diets and clean energy usage, are the accelerators of the good change we wish to bring. </li> </ol> <img src="https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/creed-community.appspot.com/o/images%2F0.189088762619574751636274162024%2Fimage3.webp?alt=media&token=8558f3c6-d0ab-4919-b04e-cbf7cf1ba46d" alt="File preview" width="700" height="466" /> Our fear is not irrational. The degrading environment can impact children&rsquo;s long-term physical and mental health in ways that don&rsquo;t impact adults. It is an existential fear not related to body looks or mid-life crisis. It&rsquo;s as bad as a fear of survival. Have you ever felt eco-anxious? Share with us in the comments.

Is It Time To Answer Nature’s Cry?

<img src="https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/creed-community.appspot.com/o/images%2F0.069722072775078691635260788558%2Fimage1.webp?alt=media&token=1ba4366e-2b0d-4bf4-8b09-4cd52786240a" alt="File preview" width="700" height="466" /> Setting the Scene: Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987) was an American Psychologist who studied how people solved moral dilemmas. Kohlberg’s work often involved posing various moral questions to his research subjects. A famous example would be the ‘Heinz dilemma.’ It was a hypothetical question regarding a man who had the chance to steal life-saving drugs for his very sick wife and why he might decide to choose a specific course of action over another. To correctly classify these responses, Kohlberg proposed a basic construct for categorizing them that correspond to different moral developmental reasoning stages. Over the years, there has been some criticism of its limitations and legitimate questions about its scope and accuracy. However, it gives us an excellent starting point to begin our discussion on the topic of morality. <table style="width: 468pt; border-collapse: collapse; margin-left: 5pt"> <tr style="height: 27.25pt"> <td colspan="3" style=" border-bottom-color: #000000; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 2.25pt; padding-left: 5pt; padding-right: 5pt; padding-top: 5pt; padding-bottom: 3.88pt; vertical-align: bottom; " > The 6 Stages/Levels of Moral Development according to Kohlberg </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 21.25pt"></tr> <tr style="height: 25.75pt"> <td rowspan="2" style=" border-top-color: #000000; border-top-style: solid; border-top-width: 1pt; border-bottom-color: #000000; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-left-color: #000000; border-left-style: solid; border-left-width: 1pt; padding: 5pt; width: fit-content !important; " > Preconventional Morality </td> <td style=" border-top-color: #000000; border-top-style: solid; border-top-width: 1pt; border-bottom-color: #000000; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-left-color: #000000; border-left-style: solid; border-left-width: 1pt; border-right-color: #000000; border-right-style: solid; border-right-width: 1pt; padding: 5pt; width: 2em !important; " > 1 </td> <td style=" border-top-color: #000000; border-top-style: solid; border-top-width: 1pt; border-bottom-color: #000000; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-right-color: #000000; border-right-style: solid; border-right-width: 1pt; padding: 5pt; width: fit-content !important; " > Punishment and Obedience - Follow the rules to avoid punishment </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 27.25pt"> <td style=" border-bottom-color: #000000; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-left-color: #000000; border-left-style: solid; border-left-width: 1pt; border-right-color: #000000; border-right-style: solid; border-right-width: 1pt; padding: 5pt; width: 2em !important; " > 2 </td> <td style=" border-bottom-color: #000000; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-right-color: #000000; border-right-style: solid; border-right-width: 1pt; padding: 5pt; width: fit-content !important; " > Self Interest - How does complying with the rules benefit me? </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 25.75pt"> <td rowspan="2" style=" border-bottom-color: #000000; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-left-color: #000000; border-left-style: solid; border-left-width: 1pt; padding: 5pt; width: fit-content !important; " > Conventional Morality </td> <td style=" border-bottom-color: #000000; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-left-color: #000000; border-left-style: solid; border-left-width: 1pt; border-right-color: #000000; border-right-style: solid; border-right-width: 1pt; padding: 5pt; width: 2em !important; " > 3 </td> <td style=" border-bottom-color: #000000; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-right-color: #000000; border-right-style: solid; border-right-width: 1pt; padding: 5pt; width: fit-content !important; " > Social Norms - Conforming to others expectations of goodness </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 27.25pt"> <td style=" border-bottom-color: #000000; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-left-color: #000000; border-left-style: solid; border-left-width: 1pt; border-right-color: #000000; border-right-style: solid; border-right-width: 1pt; padding: 5pt; width: 2em !important; " > 4 </td> <td style=" border-bottom-color: #000000; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-right-color: #000000; border-right-style: solid; border-right-width: 1pt; padding: 5pt; width: fit-content !important; " > Law and Order - Submission to authority because it’s the law </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 25.75pt"> <td rowspan="3" style=" border-bottom-color: #000000; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-left-color: #000000; border-left-style: solid; border-left-width: 1pt; padding-left: 4.5pt; padding-right: 5pt; padding-top: 5pt; padding-bottom: 4.5pt; padding: 5pt; width: fit-content !important; " > Postconventional Morality </td> <td style=" border-bottom-color: #000000; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-left-color: #000000; border-left-style: solid; border-left-width: 1pt; border-right-color: #000000; border-right-style: solid; border-right-width: 1pt; padding: 5pt; width: 2em !important; " > 5 </td> <td style=" border-bottom-color: #000000; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-right-color: #000000; border-right-style: solid; border-right-width: 1pt; padding: 5pt; width: fit-content !important; " > Social Contract - Do it for the greater common good </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 25.75pt"> <td rowspan="2" style=" border-bottom-color: #000000; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-left-color: #000000; border-left-style: solid; border-left-width: 1pt; border-right-color: #000000; border-right-style: solid; border-right-width: 1pt; padding: 5pt; width: 2em !important; " > 6 </td> <td rowspan="2" style=" border-bottom-color: #000000; border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-right-color: #000000; border-right-style: solid; border-right-width: 1pt; padding: 5pt; width: fit-content !important; " > Universal Ethical Principles - moral code based on universal values greater than oneself takes precedence over lesser laws and social mores </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 35.5pt"></tr> </table> <img src="https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/creed-community.appspot.com/o/images%2F0.069722072775078691635260788558%2Fimage2.webp?alt=media&token=695eccc0-e08e-46c2-ba09-93c68f708d51" alt="File preview" width="700" height="466" /> Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) was a German Philosopher and writer who often considered moral and ethical issues related to the concepts of personal identity and freedom. Nietzsche was a writer of great cleverness and wit. His work is still widely read and quoted to this day, and his ideas helped form the basis of many important discussions on cultural issues during the 20th century. Nietzsche’s writings often focused on the restrictive nature of morality used as a form of groupthink by the masses to suppress the creativity and originality of truly great individuals. Here are some of Nietzsche’s quotes regarding morality: “Morality is just a fiction used by the herd of inferior human beings to hold back the few superior men.” “Let us not underestimate this: we ourselves, we free spirits, are nothing less than a “revaluation of all values,” an incarnate declaration of war and triumph over all the ancient conceptions of “true” and “untrue.”” – The Antichrist “One becomes moral – not because one is moral. Submission to morality can be slavish or vain or selfish or resigned or obtusely enthusiastic or thoughtless or an act of desperation, like submission to a prince: in itself it is nothing moral.” – The Dawn “Convictions are more dangerous enemies of the truth than lies.” – Human, All Too Human For believe me! — the secret for harvesting from existence the greatest fruitfulness and the greatest enjoyment is: to live dangerously! – The Gay Science While every noble morality develops from a triumphant affirmation of itself, slave morality from the outset says No to what is "outside," what is "different," what is "not itself"; and this No is its creative deed. – Genealogy of Morals The Presence of Conflicting Values: Moral debates often arise when conflicting values or goods are considered, and when we must make a choice between them. Moral debates can center around specific issues or concrete examples of conflict that exist in real life. Or, they can also center around broader or more abstract forms of reasoning in hypothetical scenarios. People debating a particular issue can come into conflict because one person is arguing about a single case based on its own specific merits. Another person may be extrapolating from the same data to formulate answers relevant to broader hypothetical situations. The debaters need to recognize the scope of their arguments to compare their conclusions effectively. In this article, we will be dealing with general ideas about morality rather than venturing into a discussion of specific cases. Here are two questions to consider before reading further: · How do we balance a sense of personal freedom and autonomy along with social responsibility and the universal principles of moral integrity? · And are there universal principles of morality that are truly greater than the individual? Or is the greatness of man the measure of all things? In Part 2 of this article, we will begin to compare and contrast some of the ideas of Nietzsche and Kohlberg. There will also be a series of questions for the reader to consider regarding this. Finally, in Part 3 of this article, we will consider the role of morality in building a functional society and how it all ties into the principles of equality and justice.

The Development of Morality - Nietzsche vs Kohlberg - Part 1 of 3

<img src="https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/creed-community.appspot.com/o/images%2F0.7928762051668031631036323697%2FLOVE%20A%20CAREFUL%20CHOICE%20OR%20AN%20UNCONTROLLABLE%20EMOTION_1.webp?alt=media&token=9d319240-a5ea-4f70-bb9c-1222231fb7f0" alt="File preview" width="700" height="466" />Friedrich Nietzsche quoted once, "There is always madness in love. But there is also always some reason in madness." Love. Some call it a mere chemical reaction, while some prefer being more hearts-and-flowers with the definition. Others may even call it a daunting mission that sucks the life out of them. But I am not here to define love; as it is not as simple as people try to make it. What intrigued me was this question- is love a conscious choice or an uncontrollable feeling? Post hours of research and intense contemplation, here's what I discovered.Falling in love is easy; it happens almost so inadvertently that it requires little effort. New relationships are rosy and joyful, and people constantly think about their partners and wish to spend time with them. However, this "honeymoon phase" fades, leaving people questioning their relationships and chemistry. That is when the question of love being a choice or a feeling surfaces.&nbsp;First, let us look at love as a feeling. After all, you "feel" something from within during those first few interactions. The butterflies in your stomach, the daydreaming, and that rush when you see them- those are all beautiful feelings and seldom conscious choices. But feelings usually fade, and this stands true for relationships. Such sentiments are unreliable and transient, and their retreat causes doubts and distress. These feelings also leave people stuck in toxic relationships and prevent them from quitting damaging bonds. Ask any couple who has been together for a few decades, and they will confirm that it isn't just "feelings" that kept them together. <img src="https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/creed-community.appspot.com/o/images%2F0.7928762051668031631036323697%2FLOVE%20A%20CAREFUL%20CHOICE%20OR%20AN%20UNCONTROLLABLE%20EMOTION_2.webp?alt=media&token=056cec42-2e49-460f-8dc4-c0932224b59f" alt="File preview" width="701" height="468" />Then why do people believe that love is a choice? People choose to continue loving their partners. They are determined to look beyond or accept their partner's flaws. They make up their minds to love their better half every day, regardless of their feelings. But seeing love as a choice isn't always ideal. Humans need their choices and decisions to be right all the time. They think that their partners should also "choose" to be perfect, as everything is ultimately a choice. However, with matters of the heart, things aren't that simple. It is almost as unrealistic as telling someone to "chill" and them chilling instantly.&nbsp;Seeing love as merely a choice also invalidates the struggles of those stuck in toxic or abusive relationships. People look at an abusive relationship and question the victim for not ending things, as it is ultimately their choice. Individuals in such relationships are often trapped in a web of manipulation, lies, and fear. They also suffer from low self-esteem and loneliness. In some cultures, they may maintain such relationships because of the involvement of families. An influential psychological phenomenon to be considered in such relationships is intermittent reinforcement. A reward is offered by the abuser whenever the individual performs a desired activity, but only sometimes. The desire for this reward makes the person desperately repeat these activities, hoping to get rewarded with love, attention, or whatever they want. This action-reward system gets so hard-wired into the brain that people get addicted to the relationship, leaving them stuck in the circle of abuse. In such cases, it is rarely about love, let alone it being a feeling or a choice.&nbsp;So what exactly is love? Love is a skill. One that everyone can learn, and some can outclass. Being considerate, patient, kind, mindful, and supportive simultaneously requires expertise. We cannot grasp these effortlessly, like any other skill. It takes years of learning and experience to master this skill. This skill is crucial not only to continue loving someone but also to know when to stop loving someone. Knowing when to leave a relationship is an important element to this skill, one that could save you pain and trauma. When you perfect this art, you can better understand people and their circumstances to make smarter decisions. This understanding helps one differentiate a good relationship or feeling from a toxic one. Love is both a feeling and a choice at some point, but it has to be a skill for it to live long and be fruitful. Thus, the goal should be to gain expertise in this skill, not categorize it as a choice or feeling.

What do think about this idea?

Creed

Contact Us

Connect With Us