moving from catastrophising (no one will ever like me) to a more rational interpretation (my friend was probably thinking about something else and didn’t see me). This in turn helps the patient to feel better, and eventually become more self-accepting. Another part of RET is unconditional positive regard which is basically making the patient feel valued as a human no matter what they say or do or event how they
It can be implied from this that Wolsey had the ability to obtain Henry’s annulment, but failed due to his lack of effort and his half-hearted approach. Furthermore, source 1 supports this view, first implying once again that Wolsey had good contacts and that he had the ability to influence them, “Stafileo has changed his opinion”. However, a lack of effort can still be seen here as he only instructed Stafileo of the facts. It is likely that source 2 is more reliable than source 1 as it was a letter written by the Duke of Suffolk who was not directly involved in the ‘Great Matter’. As the source is also from a letter, it is unlikely the Duke of Suffolk would not have feared angering Wolsey as otherwise the letter would have been private.
Sometimes women smile to support their family ,or because somebody is smiling ,forgetting what is the real importance and value of a natural and spontaneous smile. When I smiled is in order to show my emotions , but sometime I just do it for education and to seem nice, feelings According to Amy Cunningham ,”We smile so often and so promiscuously—when we’re angry ,when we’re tense , when we’re with children , when we’re being photographed.”Amy’s opinion support the idea that a woman’s smile has lost it’s real value of meaning. Women smile, to show that they are happy and to share their love with their loved one’s to demonstrate how proud they are of their family. Families are very dependent of a women support and love. In our society a woman’s smile has become part of our life and culture, and for that reason they smile so often to show their feelings and emotions.
He was sad to say that they had decided it wasn’t going to be an option. His quote was “we discovered that too much of a good thing is actually a bad thing”. I felt a little guilty for being happy about the outcome of that
Many people make statements such as “I am lucky to be alive”, “I am so lucky I won”, and “I’m just not lucky” and truly believe that luck is something that is beyond their influence or control. They do not think that any amount of preparation would improve their luck since it is just a random event. Some believe that it is a supernatural force similar to a deity that does as it pleases with no method or reason behind its actions and that we are subject to its whim and desires. I disagree with those schools of thought and find my personal opinion in agreement with Ms. Winfrey’s statement. Merriam-Webster defines luck in many different ways, but two definitions caught my attention were: “the things that happen to a person because of chance” and “success in doing or getting something”.
The observation from “So what do you have to do to find happiness” by Dorothy Wade asserts that negative thinking is deeply ingrained in the human psyche while they are happy. Happiness will come and go, a mere by-product of fleeting circumstances. No one can be happy forever, nor can achieve the best level of joy. Wishes will not be the same as expectations. Happiness is short and fleeting human condition.
Fear can be exploited for political gains Fear occurs because of a lack of education or information Fear can blind us to reality ENOUGH OF FEAR, IT’S TIME FOR REALITY Negativity has been a winner for the Coalition, but it’s sacrificed real judgement. I want to let you in to a little conversation I had with a friend a while ago: “I love Tony Abbott!” my friend exclaimed. I rolled my eyes, and although I was on the other side of a phone, I have a feeling that my friend knew I was bewildered. “Why on earth would you love him?” I asked, more to try and think of an answer myself than have one given to me. “Because he’s going to stop the boats!” my friend continued.
The issue here is whether a deontological ethical system is the only one which is defensible, i.e. whether it can be defended and accepted philosophically when teleology cannot. This statement is claiming that it is, at the same time implying that teleology is not a defensible ethical system. People may agree with this, as one reason that philosophers might give for saying that a deontological ethical system is the only one that is defensible is because although humans are motivated by their happiness, the problem with this is that it can seem selfish to only think of ones own happiness and it could be argued that being moral involves more than happiness, and more satisfaction can be gained long term from doing something moral than doing something for your own happiness. However, other people may disagree with this and believe that a deontological ethical system is not defensible because it cannot encourage human beings to act morally, as they will not gain enough satisfaction out of doing so, as they would in a teleological ethical system where the ultimate end or goal is human happiness.
By accepting yourself you can grow and gain self-confidence. I also chose honesty, but again we both have different definitions. My definition of honesty is admitting to your mistake and truly wanting to make it right by telling the truth. My biggest pet peeve is when somebody cheats, it isn’t fun for anybody else and they aren’t being trustworthy. As soon as I meet someone I trust them until they do something to take that trust away.
Today the term friendship is thrown around in a more nonchalant manner verses how it was perceived in earlier times. Being someone’s friend was not something that was given freely. In the Renaissance, for instance, Montaigne wrote, “for to undertake to wound and offend a man for his own good is to have a healthy love for him.” This meant that to correct or constructively criticize a friend was in good favor because the friend was looking out for his or her best interest. Today the act of criticizing a friend can result in a loss of that friendship. Montaigne also wrote, “those who venture to criticize us perform a remarkable act of friendship”.