We need an option, and being optimistic may give us false promises or facades to see one thing and create inability to be resilient with the other available options. Being realistic is also applicable in our relationships. When relating to people, we can always see good things within our friends, yet similar to all things, humans are not perfect. The realistic outlook can help us understand human imperfection and not overestimate the relationship so that it can’t let us as down as not being able to move on at all. There are cases where our loved ones pass away or they are far away from us.
It may seem that these two have only subtle semantic distinctions; but in fact they are quite at odds. Perfection is excellence’s somewhat pernicious cousin. It is pedantic, binary, unforgiving and inflexible. Certainly there are times when “perfection” is necessary to establish standards, like in performance athletics such as diving and gymnastics. But in general, perfection is someone else’s perception of an ideal, and pursuing it is like chasing a hallucination.
But a drawback would be that you wouldn't be living for goodness or for a deity, you would be living for yourself and this could seem selfish to some. But if you are really doing things that you feel are truly right, then it shouldn't seem selfish. I know that people don't always choose the right decision in life though. That would be
This is where the arguments may kick in but in the end you will be more appreciated for being you and you in turn will be better understood. Finally the most important reason why occasional arguments are good or healthy is that it doesn’t allow old or past problems to become future problems. They allow you to discuss them. If a problem goes unnoticed or not talked about it just
Everybody has different values. So with that in mind, conflict will occur when individuals or nations have a lack of acceptance and understanding of these different values. Conflicts with differing interests occur when individuals or nations combat for their personal or nation goals as a whole, often ignoring the organizational goals and well-being, or other nation’s goals and well-being. Scarce resources can cause a lot of conflict. Especially between two countries.
There are various exceptions and anomalies that defy the beliefs of both, which is to be expected. These limitations are likely rooted in flaws in their understandings of human nature, which has now become a much more objective concept. Realism, however, is still much more accurate in describing the behaviour of individual states and their interaction in global politics. Because of their flawed assumptions about human nature, both ideologies are not absolute in their analyses of international politics on the individual level, the state level, and the global level; however, realism is generally the more accurate ideology. On the individual level, both realism and liberalism make very outdated assumptions about human nature.
I try to avoid conflicts and protect the least advantaged without creating unnecessary hassles for the rest. One of my weaknesses is that I trust reasonable systems to solve most problems. Because of that I run the risk to be considered authoritarian and assuming that my way is best, which is not at all my intention. At some point I could become isolated because not everyone can guarantee equality. My obsession with justice could drive those I care about most away from me.
What seems to be obvious might not be true at all. Conventional wisdom can be considered as convenient. Some people would rather believe what others tell them to believe because it might be safer to be politically correct. Some people don’t have to worry about figuring it out because it has already been figured out for them. The major problem with conventional wisdom is that is difficult to prove otherwise because it is already fixed in people’s
), but still subscribes to the overall view that action is purposeful (even if the purpose is mistaken sometimes). Constructivism is a bit harder to define. Obviously if rationalism sees action as purposeful, then the most major difference is that in constructivism this is not necessarily the case. However, constructivism doesn't want to say that people just bump
It correctly interpreted that I am more positive past orientated than negative passed orientated. However, it depicted me more as a present-fatalistic person instead of a present-hedonistic person. Present-fatalistic individuals essentially do not see a bright future and think their fate has been foreordained. They additionally score high in aggression, nervousness and depression, in light of the fact that they regularly see themselves as helpless and view life as unfair. That information does not relate to me at all except for a couple of things.