<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%2F0.096454186785170261631043458006%2FLove%20Is%20Passed%20Down%20in%20Waves_1.webp?alt=media&token=6e5de0ea-e49d-4b35-966c-e301629ae749" alt="File preview" width="701" height="390" /> All human beings need love to live. When I say this, I&rsquo;m not speaking of love solely in the romantic sense. The heart also requires other kinds of loving nourishment such as attention, affection, and appreciation. While biological life can undoubtedly continue without love, the heart becomes very desolate in its absence. When the heart's core begins to wither from a lack of love, the distortion leaves a void that must either be ignored at peril, compensated for with something else, or be addressed directly. &nbsp;We want to cultivate, nourish, and sustain love, both inside of ourselves and in our relationships with others around us. We do not want it to end. Some believe that we can continue the cycle of love perpetually by having children. By creating life from a little egg and seed, we can pass on a portion of ourselves in a biological, psychological, emotional, and perhaps even spiritual sense. We can create unique bonds of love that connect the generations of humanity in an unbroken chain.&nbsp; &nbsp;While many of us may not even be familiar with the names of our distant ancestors, one thing is certain; they shared with us the common human need and capacity for the expression of love. Whether by an act of love, desire, or both, they created more life, and eventually, we arrived in the world. The external forms continue to change like waves in the sea, but the elements that compose the water remain the same. <img src="https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/creed-community.appspot.com/o/images%2F0.096454186785170261631043458006%2FLove%20Is%20Passed%20Down%20in%20Waves_2.webp?alt=media&token=11080e81-9b2a-4904-8ed2-48b4c9945fbc" alt="File preview" width="700" height="466" /> However, this creation of life sparked by love or desire passed down to us is often far from perfect. While we cannot allow our lives today to be entirely defined by the good and bad qualities of the generations that came before us, they are still inevitably contributing to who we are today. Both natural and nurturing traits play a significant role in our overall experience of life and love.&nbsp; &nbsp;While we pass along the strength of our love to the next generation, we also pass along our inherited and developed weaknesses. In doing so, space is established in innocent hearts for greed, anger, ignorance, and fear to taint the otherwise beautiful gifts of love and life. <img src="https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/creed-community.appspot.com/o/images%2F0.096454186785170261631043458006%2FLove%20Is%20Passed%20Down%20in%20Waves_3.webp?alt=media&token=bb58abff-35df-49fa-b7e1-070ad6bae6af" alt="File preview" width="700" height="465" /> These questions begin to arise at this point:&nbsp; <ul> <li> &nbsp; &nbsp; Is it possible to lessen somehow the contamination of suffering that interferes with the love we seek to pass on?</li> <li> &nbsp; &nbsp; Is it possible to overcome the root causes of this harm and establish a more holistic approach towards love?</li> </ul> Our imperfections make us human. However, where is any space left over for greed, ignorance, anger, or fear inside true love? These things are like oil and water. While they can occupy the same space, they can never mix because it is against their nature. Yet, we are imperfect vessels where this amalgamation can reoccur continuously. The same things about the human condition that make us so wonderful also make us awful.&nbsp; It leaves me with a final question:&nbsp;&nbsp; <ul> <li> &nbsp; &nbsp; Do you believe that any form of pure love can exist within imperfect human vessels?</li> </ul> Perhaps somewhere in-between an ideal and the flawed reality we inhabit, we can better come to terms with what others have given us and what we have passed along to others in our lives. We can begin to touch the endless cycles of love and suffering found intertwined throughout the generation across time.&nbsp; Love is passed down in waves. &nbsp;

Love Is Passed Down in Waves

<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%2F0.7928762051668031631036323697%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%2F0.52485430586477431631036480229%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 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%2F0.067500485203443981630900523657%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%2F0.67903632522419131628072882954%2FTHE%20ERA%20OF%20DIGITAL%20HAPPINESS_AanviJain_1.webp?alt=media&token=ccf2a536-190b-46bd-ab94-6a9b6df3886e" alt="" width="765" height="589" /> It is a lazy Sunday; imagine yourself scrolling through your Instagram feed with no motive except passing the time. Suddenly you come across a beautiful picture of the Alps posted by your sister's colleague's brother. For the first few minutes, you are amazed by the beauty, but later, a wave of sadness dawns upon you as you wish it were you who was enjoying the snowy Alps instead of sitting at home.&nbsp; We all have undeniably experienced such moments in our lives frequently. We see random pictures and stories online of people enjoying and fill ourselves with this dread of missing out and not living life to the fullest. While you are occupied by your thoughts, making you feel unhappy for not taking a trip to Europe or eating an aesthetic breakfast in a cute cafe, you overlook that what you see on social media is only the good bits of the person's life.&nbsp; Your sister's colleague's brother might be posting gorgeous pictures of the Alps, but do you know about him getting hypothermia due to the freezing weather afterwards. Of course, you don't; nobody ever publicly shares their struggles.&nbsp; The initial intention of social media was to bring people all around the globe closer; while it was successful in achieving that, it did introduce some new issues to people&rsquo;s lives. Everyone is always keen to know about what is going on with the other person, leading to a person spending hours stalking acquaintances or unknown people. Knowing what the other person is doing might disrupt our happiness, making the aimless scrolling more harmful to our mental health than we intend it to be. To seek gratification causes us to post all the happy moments of our lives; Simultaneously, we expect a vast audience to respond. We spiral down into disappointment when the results don't meet our expectations. Even if we look happy online, at the end of the day, we are gloomy. Digital happiness brings us no good; instead, it develops feelings like envy and hatred towards one another.&nbsp; Our hunger for approval and praise drives us crazy, deeply stuck in this never-ending competition with all our companions trying to look better online. Our realities might be completely wrecked, but we are too focused on what is going on in the e-world to pay attention.&nbsp; While always trying to prove to the online world that we live the &ldquo;perfect&rdquo; life with fancy meals and stress-free, healthy lifestyles, we have entirely forgotten to embrace it. In the struggle to be our best selves, we overlooked our failures and flaws; we forgot the real meaning of happiness.&nbsp; Now we only smile when posing for a picture; we only laugh for a video; we only care to show others that we are good. Our happiness became digital and fake, all our motives to do good got corrupted, and we lost our true selves in this dark maze of social media.&nbsp;

The Era of Digital Happiness

<img src="https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/creed-community.appspot.com/o/images%2F0.10951663473921981628072883027%2FMEDIA%20AND%20LOVE_AanviJain_1.webp?alt=media&token=5dc42055-2f14-400a-b2aa-cde4c8b21b38" alt="" width="764" height="573" /> Love is an abstract concept, a complicated emotion. The greatest men of all time couldn't answer what love is. Many tried to give us a definition, but many believe it's beyond our understanding.&nbsp; So how much does the media know? Media made all of us believe that a perfect person is waiting for us. Someone whom the day we meet, our lives will be complete&mdash;a person who answers all our problems All the hope they have given us without any solid proof. Can our life also be a fairy tale like Cinderella with our soulmates going around the globe looking for us? The honest answer to this is a bummer for all; not all love stories are like Cinderella. While growing up, we saw perfect couples with romantic bickering. Many filmmakers and authors tried to capture the true essence of love by providing us with pieces such as The Notebook or Fault in our stars. Such creations did give us a desire for a dreamy love story and the perfect relationship but what it did not show us is that no relationship is perfect. Love is not as simple; it takes more than the presence of two individuals attracted to each other. It includes trust, selflessness, compromises from both ends.&nbsp; The best graphics we see on searching about love are people smiling with red hearts all around them. But as it is rightly said, all glitters are not gold. People can be in love and yet fight; they are not always happy with each other. There are disputes and conflicts.&nbsp; Another aspect of love we see in the media are couples celebrating their love by giving thoughtful gifts, going out for romantic dinners, and always spending time with each other. But in reality, that is not the case. Two individuals might not make romantic gestures regularly, but that doesn't change the fact that they love each other. They can still be as happy as other couples. The media cannot filter the toxic relationships, they have failed to highlight this issue, and those suffering are afraid to speak up. Love can make a person blind to the damage they are causing to their partner. It is a must to make everyone aware of the red flags to prevent them from the worst. Similarly, even abusive relationships are a subject of great importance. Not everyone is happy; some are hurting mentally or physically. Media is an integral part of our lives; it greatly influences our beliefs. But what we see there is not always true. Love is not all rainbows and glitters; it's not all smiles. The media only shows what they think the people like to see, and not what's true. Hence, we shouldn't be quickly captivated by everything they show us. What has been your experience with love?

Media and Love

<img src="https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/creed-community.appspot.com/o/images%2F0.10178526676753231634814078185%2Fimage4.webp?alt=media&token=bf866dc2-27a8-4832-9559-8cfaefc17b48" alt="File preview" width="700" height="466" /> Is peace just a tool to achieve prosperity? What is the real reason that we as human beings collectively value peace so much? Our true motivations for desiring peace are often not as altruistic or noble as we may want to believe. In the most rudimentary and pragmatic sense, I would say that we find peace necessary to ensure prosperity. <img src="https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/creed-community.appspot.com/o/images%2F0.10178526676753231634814078185%2Fimage2.webp?alt=media&token=43949d37-45d8-42c3-8a9f-6c6c7e77e647" alt="File preview" width="700" height="466" /> Overall, we don’t love peace because we genuinely take delight in treating each other well or truly enjoy tolerating one another’s differences. Often, peace is used socially as a politically expedient tool, as a means to an end on the path of goal fulfillment. All human beings fear misfortune and desire prosperity. But must peace and prosperity always be coupled together in this way? Peace is also a matter of scale and relationship. We could consider these relations being on a number line as so: 1.Self – 2. Household – 3. Close Relations – 4. Community – 5. Region – 6. Nation – 7. Global Peace can simultaneously be present in some of these realms but not others. The further we expand outward in levels of size and complexity, the less likely it seems that peace could ever be possible. Why is peace so hard to achieve and maintain? Here are four general reasons: · Because of the presence of competing goods and conflicting values among a diverse population. · A biologically innate and culturally nurtured sense of competition for limited resources. · The immense hoarding of resources creates long-term and systemic inequality. · Resentment and hostility over past grievances, offenses, and harms. Is peace tied to systemic principles of dominance and hierarchy? Human societies flourish by utilizing principles of dominance and hierarchy. Historically, we find the subjugation of one group by another often deemed a necessary evil to establish order and achieve peace and prosperity. However, history also teaches us that this dominance cannot last forever - so there is always an underlying sense of fear among the group in power that what they have done is wrong and that one day their own time will come. They will lose the power they once wielded, along with the peace and prosperity established on the backs and struggles and lives of others. Often, this leads those who reap the greatest benefits from this ‘peace’ to strive to maintain control using any means necessary, devolving into increasingly depraved and unethical behaviors. Peace is often maintained via threats of violence or overt acts of aggression. Those with authority often fail to achieve lasting peace because they externalize the principle. They become convinced that they are only fighting against a particular group of people or ideology contrary to their own, which represents a threat to their stability or the status quo. And this is certainly true in the most basic sense. But over the long term, what they are ultimately fighting against is the universal condition of impermanence. Just as human beings will never conquer old age or death, all social and cultural institutions that establish and maintain 'peace' and 'order' tend to rise and fall over time. <img src="https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/creed-community.appspot.com/o/images%2F0.10178526676753231634814078185%2Fimage3.webp?alt=media&token=b1d56ffd-2a80-45fe-a779-92db2f986fb2" alt="File preview" width="700" height="466" /> In the past – various rulers and nations often amassed and exerted power to attempt to conquer the entire world. They sought to do this through force by conquering and colonizing the peoples in the regions they invaded. Those with the most significant power today (who attempt to steer the peace and order of the world) now know the historical futility of such violent militaristic endeavors. The world is simply too diverse of a place, and the resources of individual nations are too limited for only one group to rule over all others. However, there is a catch to this rule. And those with true power have been moving towards it for some time now. Peace as a method for meeting the hierarchy of human needs. All people have various needs which must be met for life to continue, which psychologist Abraham Maslow detailed in his Hierarchy of Needs. Basic physiological needs in the modern system can be met through commerce, which allows currency to be used to purchase the resources necessary to sustain life. Safety and security can further be maintained by protecting private property using the police and military. The idea of a single nation controlling the entire planet becomes increasingly absurd in the modern era. However, worldwide peace and order which was impossible to achieve previously through military might alone, may yet be reached via united economic systems and expanded policing, all in the name of prosperity. I believe that presently, many technologically advanced societies are working together towards a future goal of achieving some form of global peace through the unification of economic systems, trade, and commerce. And honestly, while I do have some major concerns about this type of system, I think that this probably has the best overall chance of working. Even though this unification will not meet the needs of all people, and while a prescribed amount of war is always profitable for business, ushering in a time of relative peace and prosperity genuinely seems to be in everyone’s best interest. Of course, the degree of investment in ensuring the success of such a system corresponds with how high up the rungs of the socio-economic ladder one is positioned. <img src="https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/creed-community.appspot.com/o/images%2F0.10178526676753231634814078185%2Fimage1.webp?alt=media&token=fe71caa7-b0af-42c6-a2c8-858d6c53b0a5" alt="File preview" width="700" height="466" /> This monetized system creates peace through dependence rather than independence. As economies shift from rural and agricultural to urbanized with specialized skilled labor, current generations now often find more stability and wealth than at any previous time in history. The unseen costs of peace. However, joining in this competition for economic prosperity comes at the price of sacrificing self-reliance and self-sufficiency. Most people in the modern workforce do not have the time, knowledge, or experience necessary to provide for their own basic physical needs - food, shelter, and clothing. Instead, they pay someone skilled in these areas to meet these requirements by purchasing them as commodified goods and services. This is not necessarily an entirely bad system for many people. As a citizen of a developed nation born in the late 20th century, I've definitely enjoyed the benefits of this system in my own life. But for many others who were not so fortunate in their draw during the birth lottery, the same system is problematic and saps away at their peace and prosperity every day. Once basic physical needs are met, those who still have time and resources left over can use them to pursue leisure. And many people today enjoy an unrivaled quality of leisure, from air conditioning to mobile technology, from fast transportation to cheap, convenient food, and of course, plentiful entertainment. Once we have ascended one level on the hierarchy of needs, we must move on to the next. So even though many people find themselves surrounded by luxury, comfort, peace, and stability in the physical sense, there is a large void left to fill in terms of psychological, emotional, and spiritual needs. And this same system that works so well to meet our physical needs also tends to foster severe neglect for many of life’s deeper values. We run the risk of becoming so busy pursuing the external fruits of peace, such as leisure and prosperity, that we may find ourselves with little time left over to work at cultivating peace in a more meaningful sense. Where might the peace and prosperity established by such a global economic system lead humanity over time? As I mentioned previously, this system will benefit many – however, it's doubtful that it will work well for all. Those at the bottom will always be exploited to feed energy into the system and consolidate power at the top. We can work together to end war, conflict, discrimination, and poverty from within the construct of a global ‘new world order.’ However, a system that relies on suffering and exploitation of others to achieve peace and prosperity for ‘me and mine’ is an unethical way to conduct the affairs. And as mentioned previously, no system that provides humanity with peace and security is ever truly permanent. There will always be threats to it, and one day, it will eventually collapse. I feel that the next impending fall and loss of stability will likely be especially devastating for humanity. In many ways, it's far easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine the demise of the current system. It’s hard to say what will happen, how it will happen, or when, but one thing is certain, we can’t outrun change and impermanence forever. What can we do if we find it morally objectionable to participate in a system of peace and prosperity like the one described above? Is it ever okay to violate certain ethical principles in the pursuit of peace? What can we do about this? Should we fight the system? Here’s the problem – the system is not only far bigger than you and I, but the game is also rigged, and it has been going on for millennia – so the most likely thing to happen is that you’re going to lose. And even if you do make it your life’s goal to “fight the power” - in a sense, you're still controlled by your reactions to the system and to overthrowing the 'peace and prosperity' that it brings. You may lose your sense of peace in the process of fighting for it – or end up just replacing one system with another that possesses similar flaws (although hopefully less of them). I don't mean to discourage people from pursuing a better world by enacting change of some sort. Establishing peace and the progress it brings are some of the most important contributions that every generation makes towards bettering humanity. But if we look at life in a broader historical context, it might help us to temper our expectations. So, if we grow tired of working for peace, should we become mindless slaves to the system and focus only on expanding our prosperity or chasing leisure instead? No! Because then the system completely controls us, and we forget about what is most important in life. And even if this lifestyle allows us to achieve external peace in our surroundings, how will we ever find any meaningful peace while living with such a great internal void? Is there a middle path that tends towards peace in an imperfect world? Here are some simple but effective ways to try and walk a peaceful path in life: 1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Prioritize creating a tiny bit of peace in your own life first, then turn your focus outward to larger things as well. 2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Be mindful of what things that are actually within your power to do regarding peace. Pursue peace for its own inherent good that is beyond your limited and fixed interests as much as is possible. Remember that true peace is a good end unto itself. 3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Let go of the connection that has been forged mentally between peace and prosperity. And as we find so often in life, no amount of material prosperity will result in lasting or meaningful peace - although achieving a reasonable amount of material stability is always beneficial to one’s well-being. Peace can bring us prosperity, but prosperity alone is not enough to provide us with meaningful peace.

What do think about this idea?

Creed

Contact Us

Connect With Us