<img src="https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/creed-community.appspot.com/o/images%2F0.102809502103431431634384762413%2Fimage1.webp?alt=media&token=252ffbd9-e7e2-4c60-81eb-836f08101c52" alt="File preview" width="700" /> In one perspective, time could be easily seen as a homeless person: ignored, despised by some, where only the wise and the goodhearted pay attention and try to help. The result of a system that is too busy counting money and not caring about death because &ldquo;diamonds last forever&rdquo;. But time (as a homeless person) is on the streets, constantly showing us that there is something wrong with the world and that beyond all distractions, suffering still is the infrastructure of mankind. Time will stop you on your way to work and ask for just a spare change, and you may ignore it, but the uneasiness of being indifferent will stick with you, and you&rsquo;ll be anxious. Or maybe time can also be the soldier in the field, fighting against chaos and ensuring our liberty because time is what secures our present since even against all odds, existence somehow manages to thrive in a universe of uncertainty. It is also possible for time to be an artist on the street, ignoring the before or after, living in between. Because what is real can only be real in the present, what is in the past is merely a memory. And what is the future, if not only speculation?&nbsp;The artist, when playing his art, carries the wisdom of living according to existence. Often underestimated and seen as stupid or unimportant, however, with the flow of events the strokes of paint and the agressive hits at the Canvas that one day was foolish suddenly becomes what is called &ldquo;a masterpiece&rdquo; and finally taken seriously. In the same way, time flows constantly and wipes out entire empires. Time could be seen as the baker who gives us our daily bread, but it can also be seen as the cop that will throw you in a cell at the slightest mistake. (As we can see in people who spent years of their life with something they regret, and they can feel nothing on their deathbed but resentment) <img src="https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/creed-community.appspot.com/o/images%2F0.102809502103431431634384762413%2Fimage2.webp?alt=media&token=37c8ba1b-df8f-49ce-809e-ab7d06574765" alt="File preview" width="700" /> The truth is that time is what you make of it, your ally, your enemy, bliss or a curse and the only thing known for sure is that it eventually outruns everyone and everything. The choices we make are responsible for building the persona that time will incorporate into our lives. Ten minutes of sleep may be minimal, but ten minutes of excruciating pain is unforgettable. And the reason why we should have that in mind is that, in the end, a desensitized life guided only by what is convenient and emptiness is arguably worth less than a single moment of virtue and authenticity. To make good usage of time is not only to be productive but to make every second count. Of course, in the 24 hours that a day has, we won&rsquo;t be able to make each second worth a lifetime, but unfortunately, the opposite is possible, and it is rather common: 24 hours can be easily wasted. In our last seconds, time serves as a judge and although the sentence is inevitably death&nbsp;the difference will be: The verdict of some will be a shameful one (for those who have completely wasted their life), and others will have glory as because they wisely lived while they could.

What if time was a person?

<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

<img src="https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/creed-community.appspot.com/o/images%2F0.048438063517993961630902440187%2FProcrastination_1.webp?alt=media&token=8f9134e8-755b-402a-b71f-653b2809f51f" alt="File preview" width="400" height="601" />There are times when staring at a blank wall is interesting. And mostly, these are times when your desk nearby with its papers, sticky notes, and laptop screams for your attention. As much as you want to sit staring at the wall, which is not even the part with the pictures on it, but just white paint, your desk won&rsquo;t let you grant its opponent all the attention you wish to. You keep denying your desk&rsquo;s call, but you also don&rsquo;t feel so good about your response. It drives you into a battle between the rebel in you not wanting to sit at the desk for work vs the work itself. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s okay. Everybody procrastinates&rdquo;, you would think as you turn your eyes back at the wall.&nbsp;The term procrastination has been so often used for any scenario where critical work is not given enough importance that it has become a metonym for laziness. We closely associate it with one&rsquo;s inability to manage time, lack of willpower, and the like. But is it the paucity of your time management skills that keeps you hanging indefinitely between responsibility and your action? Procrastination indeed looks like a regulation issue. But what if it isn&rsquo;t about the regulation of time but of your emotions instead?Tim Pychyl, an associate professor of psychology at Carleton University, believes that &ldquo;Procrastination is not a time-management problem, it&rsquo;s an emotion-management problem.&rdquo; In his book &lsquo;Solving the Procrastination Puzzle,&rsquo; he defines procrastination as &ldquo;a voluntary delay of an intended act despite the knowledge that this delay may harm us.&rdquo; As much clarity and truth it holds, this very definition is also one of something that is against human nature. We are inclined to seek satisfaction and happiness and perform deeds that bring us closer to these. Why would you sense danger and still choose to delay your tasks if ticking them off your list is what would make you happy? There could be times where even after allotting a specific slot of your day for a task, you do not find yourself doing it very efficiently.Though time management plays a crucial role in meeting deadlines, it is not the only reason someone slacks off. When properly looked into, procrastination doesn&rsquo;t look like a problem with your time management. Instead, it seems like an emotion-focused coping strategy, wherein your inner critic comes into play. Self-judgment naturally follows, but you should channel it tastefully such that you move forward, offering self-compassion rather than questioning your abilities and sinking in guilt.As Pychyl says, &ldquo;to the extent that I can deal with my emotions, I can stay on task,&rdquo; handling your emotions is essential for working, regardless of how petty it sounds.Gathering ideas to overcome procrastination often results in rumination and self-loathing, taking us further away from the solution. But what is &lsquo;the&rsquo; solution? It is unreasonable to expect to find a single solution to such a complex issue as procrastination. The cause and resolution are not the same for everyone. What could be possible reasons behind this issue that becomes a &lsquo;suffering&rsquo; in the long run?<img src="https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/creed-community.appspot.com/o/images%2F0.048438063517993961630902440187%2FProcrastination_2.webp?alt=media&token=569ee435-64b8-4434-969a-19d1fe29692b" alt="File preview" width="739" height="492" />Another psychologist named Piers Steel from the University of Calgary wrote a paper called &lsquo;The Nature of Procrastination: A Meta-Analytic and Theoretical Review of Quintessential Self-Regulatory Failure&rsquo;, wherein he reported four major possible causes of procrastination:i) Low Self Confidence: Your willingness to do a task is likely to drop if you are not confident enough about the process and outcome. Being afraid of your inability to meet your expectations and those from others is a cue for your procrastination to rise. Reduce negative self-talk, as this will add layers to your anxiety. Forgive yourself if you make mistakes, but more importantly, appreciate yourself for every move you make.ii) Pleasure derived from the task: It's less probable that you&rsquo;ll delay a task if it's exciting or rewarding enough. The boredom associated with the task plays a higher role than its difficulty in foreseeing the level of procrastination. When you don&rsquo;t feel like working on something, try to find what could be holding you back. Face your negative thoughts related to the task at hand, don&rsquo;t try to run away.iii) Distractibility: Sometimes, it could be that you want to finish a task, but your environment hinders your focus and forces you to do otherwise. Putting away things that are likely to distract you and finding a new domain or modifying your present one to suit yourself will help you stay focused on completing the task.iv) Relaxed deadlines: It's pretty natural to want to take more leisure time before starting a task when you know there is enough time to do it. Doing so might be helpful to relax if carefully worked on, but procrastination usually takes over, dominates, and makes you haste in the last moment. To manage a distant deadline, break it down into smaller deadlines and tackle them every day. Train yourself to finish the work first, and enjoy the remaining time as leisurely as you want.Other factors like denial of consequences and rebelliousness do support these causes.Bringing in some math to his theory, Steel has put the above coworking factors in the form of an equation. The product of your self-confidence and the pleasure from the task, divided by the product of your distractibility and time till deadline, gives your chances of not procrastinating on your task. In simpler terms, the first two factors need to be increased, while the latter two need to be decreased to improve your productivity.People procrastinate differently. The key is to identify your vulnerability and work on it. Hence, this equation can only be used as a guide and not as the final solution to solve the issue. Keep tuning these factors and the others that support them until you are satisfied with the level of mental and situational comfort.Do not see procrastination as a personality problem. It is only an inner critic trying to talk to you. So listen, and communicate through actions!

Procrastination - What is it trying to tell you?

<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%2F0.392732045901529551628072884675%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%2F0.088762256553584831628072882401%2FThe%20Illusion%20of%20Happiness_AyushDubey_1.webp?alt=media&token=6b125df9-b06f-435c-8713-875570e3839e" alt="" width="764" height="509" />Human beings seek happiness, and the majority of the activity we perform is to achieve a certain amount of joy, be it in any form. For some people, the pursuit of happiness summarizes their existence. However, there are times when we think about what exactly we are trying to achieve when we talk about happiness.Everyone has different opinions about happiness. These differences make it challenging to explain happiness in a general, all-inclusive manner. There are times when the pursuit of happiness itself seems mundane, and this realization makes us feel delusional. Delusional because we realize that we have been dreaming of something so abstract and naive.Happiness is never an end in itself because the things that make us happy tell a lot about our nature itself. Therefore, we can use happiness to go within and think about the true nature of human existence. Happiness has its origin in struggle, and accepting this truth will save us from a lot of disappointment. The funny thing is that we desire happiness because we want to escape our sufferings. However, the condition of human beings is that first, we toil and then realize that we have to struggle some more, and from time to time, we are lucky enough to experience a momentary bliss as we go through life.When Camus said the struggle itself towards the height is enough to fill a man&rsquo;s heart, living this life alone is enough to make us feel fulfilled. However, the more we live and go through life, the more we realize that suffering is universal. Thus, our sole purpose must be to create subjective meaning and strive through struggle instead of longing for happiness.Subjective meaning is essential for happiness because having a personal purpose is a constructive illusion. It allows us to attach importance to our endless sufferings. We come to realize that our fate is tragic, and there&rsquo;s no one coming to rescue us. Yet we enjoy our severe hardship, for the fruits of our agony are in the form of happiness. This realization makes us feel fulfilled even for a brief period, and if true happiness does exist, it is in this realization. Because of this reason, all of us occupy ourselves. We do it to fill the eternal void in our life. The more we indulge in meaningful activities, the more we realize that every instance of our life can form meaning in itself if we let it.&nbsp;Thus, going through these petty days makes us realise that happiness was never and will never be a destination in the end. It is instead a path, a journey, and being alive with a crippling sense of absurdity is a task and a reward in itself. The reason being that life justifies itself, and one can only understand this as one lives through the questions and the daily struggle. At the same time, discovering something sustainable will kindle hope for us and others around them, even for a brief time. Happiness follows when we realize that joy and absurdity are inseparable.We indeed use our future to escape our present. We live in those moments where we find peace; it can be in the form of living the memories or dreaming about the future. So one needs a standpoint about where one&rsquo;s existence is heading, and that abstract, hopeful idea can inspire us. So if we continue to strive for meaning that we find sustainable despite the realization that we shall cease to exist in the end, we are no less than gods, for we are truly conscious of our fate and our existence.&nbsp;Thus, happiness is an illusion. We constantly misinterpret the root essence of happiness, and it isn&rsquo;t something to be locked inside a vault or something which will stay with us forever. We cannot pursue happiness, and the more we seek it, the more it feels like sand in our palms. On the other hand, we must commit to a cause that we find meaningful and sustain ourselves and others around us. Use the absurdity of your existence to honor your sufferings and embrace the existential dread which arises in the form of existential agony. We are the modern Sisyphus.&nbsp;

The Illusion of Happiness

<img src="https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/creed-community.appspot.com/o/images%2F0.84000070748493851631036143223%2FCAN%20BUYING%20THINGS%20REALLY%20MAKE%20YOU%20HAPPY_1.webp?alt=media&token=5bafadf1-5db3-4bc5-b2f6-2e6a7c364b21" alt="File preview" width="701" height="408" />Try this brief experiment the next time you watch TV. Look at the advertisements when they appear, and notice how almost every ad tries to convince you that buying and using those products would make you happier instantly. Be it the ad for your regular toothpaste, a bar of candy, or even a high-end SUV, it all revolves around making consumers happy. Of course, this is not a very surprising or new fact; capitalism has almost always revolved around selling the idea of happiness, and we cannot blame these brands. Humans have, after all, been obsessed with the concept of happiness since time immemorial. But here is the real question- does buying these products truly make you happy?&nbsp;It is a widespread notion that being materialistic and buying things will not make one happy, and even if it did, it would only be temporary. However, studies have proven that experiences make you more content than purchasing goods. Renowned psychologists Leaf Van Boven and Thomas Gilovich established in 2010 that they suffer from buyer's remorse when people buy things. During or after purchasing, individuals gravitate towards comparing their possessions to those of others. People get used to their products and lose their enthusiasm eventually, only to move on to whatever else makes them happy. The study participants also claimed that experiences made them feel content, as their effects last longer and are harder to compare to those of others. Think about it; even when you buy things, it is often the entire experience of possession that makes you feel elated rather than simply owning the object.&nbsp;<img src="https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/creed-community.appspot.com/o/images%2F0.84000070748493851631036143223%2FCAN%20BUYING%20THINGS%20REALLY%20MAKE%20YOU%20HAPPY_2.webp?alt=media&token=65db495c-a3b2-4add-862b-3a6a9539070d" alt="File preview" width="700" height="466" />But hold on before the minimalist in you exclaims, "money can't buy happiness". A recent contrasting study has proven that buying things that match your personality would indeed make you happy. Let me elaborate with a personal example. Few things excite me more than buying new clothes, whereas I care little about electronic gadgets. A tech geek would be thrilled to invest in a new gadget, but buying new clothes means nothing to him. We would not just enjoy owning these products but would also enjoy the experience of purchasing them.&nbsp;So which of these studies is, in fact, correct? Well, we won't know for sure, but there is a middle-ground for those who wish to have both objects and experiences. A study published in 2014 explained that "experiential purchases'' or products that offer consumers an experience were just as good as gaining contentment from life experiences. These could also be products that help you express yourself freely or facilitate creativity. I enjoy buying items such as paints, sketchbooks, and tools that help me create art. But to me, these count as both experiences and purchases. In conclusion, whether you prefer buying products over enjoying experiences is contingent on your personality. Every individual values a particular type of happiness more than others, and there is no right or wrong in either of these.&nbsp;References-<ol> <li> Stigmatizing Materialism: On Stereotypes and Impressions of Materialistic and Experiential Pursuits, Leaf Van Boven, Margaret C. Campbell, Thomas Gilovich, First Published April 2, 2010</li> <li> Money Buys Happiness When Spending Fits Our Personality, Sandra C. Matz, Joe J. Gladstone, and David Stillwell, Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, and Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge</li> <li> To have in order to do: Exploring the effects of consuming experiential products on well-being, Darwin A. Guevarra, Ryan T. Howell, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA b Department of Psychology, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA, USA</li></ol>

Can Buying Things Really Make You Happy?

<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.

Love: A Careful Choice or an Uncontrollable Emotion?

<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 alt="" src="https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/creed-community.appspot.com/o/images%2F0.95060762475388861635087782163%2Fimage2.webp?alt=media&token=06996007-6580-4d52-945c-7ef69de2f915" >Unselfishness is not an inherent human quality.Selfishness is a human fact. Unselfishness is a non-fact. Human beings are born selfish. It is simply that our selfishness tones down with time. When a child comes out of his mother&rsquo;s womb, he cries unstoppably - out of selfishness. The child was utterly comfortable inside his mother&rsquo;s womb, and suddenly he is out, which causes him discomfort, and hence, the act of weeping is selfishness. It is an innocent yet desperate cry to revive his comfort back.As you grow up, you observe selfishness is a troublesome quality to have. You get yelled at by your parents and teachers, you struggle with building trust with people, and you realize that if you continue to be selfish, you will be alienated from the world. Gradually, you understand the value of compromise. The fact that the ideal way to act in the world is by being unselfish, to give without expecting anything in return. To give for the sake of giving.But, the very act of cultivating unselfishness within yourself is not pure unselfishness. It is but an indirect form of selfishness. It implies, you cleverly adopt an appearance that seems empathetic and unselfish, but that appearance is merely a deception you use, a means to a selfish end. Now, this behavior starts manifesting itself in different areas of life - in love, friendships, relationships, and beyond.We like the idea of unselfishness and are yet driven by our selfish interests, which makes us a vessel of selfishness disguised as trustable and selfless. And, that&rsquo;s the tragedy.<img alt="" src="https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/creed-community.appspot.com/o/images%2F0.95060762475388861635087782163%2Fimage1.webp?alt=media&token=113cc53f-a3ff-4289-9bb6-abb63a0de5f7" >&ldquo;The problem with unselfishness is that you cannot be unselfish and yet attached.&rdquo;The core necessity of unselfishness is absolute detachment from the worldly world. Unselfishness is a side-effect. To cultivate it as if it exists externally means you are trying to create a side-effect without having the source that spurts the side-effect.Let&rsquo;s take love as an example. Only unselfish love can be everlasting, and it&rsquo;s a fact, not a perception. The relationship issues that have become so ridiculously common are a result of selfish love. Two people uniting and using each other as a means to their selfish ends. They&rsquo;ve concealed their selfishness so profoundly in an unselfish appearance that even they do not realize that it is their selfish interests that govern their actions. They&rsquo;re so tremendously selfish because they&rsquo;re desperately attached to the transitory and ephemeral pleasures of the world. And hence, they cannot cultivate unselfishness any more than its tentative appearance.Only a man who is detached is unselfish. I don&rsquo;t have to explain any further. You can see it for yourself.Visualize a state of mind where you are totally detached from the world - a world that caters to your pleasures and keeps you trapped in its chase perpetually. In that very visualization, you&rsquo;ll find unselfishness, the true form of it, and in that, you&rsquo;ll discover absolute freedom. Unselfishness for the sake of unselfishness. And it is only through detachment that you can ever attach to the world and its people truly. Because until then, you&rsquo;re nothing but a slave to your own pool of endless needs. So, the problem with the kind of unselfishness you&rsquo;re trying to cultivate and what the motivational speakers, gurus, or social workers preach - is selfishness itself.

The Problem With Unselfishness

<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>

What do think about this idea?

Creed

Contact Us

Connect With Us