Are we DESTROYING society through a false sense of SELF-ESTEEM

by Terry 84 Replies latest jw friends

Terry

Terry-when you stated that people habe to see where they are in essence that your son should not have gone to 'normal' school because of his challenges- I think you are right on that one. If you read my last post you'll see that I also have an asperger's child. My ex husband's parents were told while he was in grade school to take him to a psychologist, his behavior was way out of control. They refused, and pampered him instead. They raised a monster who believes that the entire world must revolve around him. Our asperger's son most likely inherited biologically from his father-but I have raised him much differently-to know himself and understand that the majority of people do not think the way he does. he has blossomed after 9 months of therapy, and medication, he is able to go to public schools. No disrespect meant to anyone else here, I just see your point about letting people see what they are-and growing from there.
Most illuminating post! Thank you.
In another vein, I just read a newspaper story. At a rape trial the rape victim, a woman, was admonished by the judge. She is forbidden from using the word "rape". She isn't allowed to say "sexual assault". She cannot call herself a "victim" of assault or rape.
The woman sputtered to reporters, "How an a judge tell me I wasn't a victim of rape?"
What has happened here is similar, but, not identical to my topic thread about the destruction of language and how it predisposes an outcome.
Very troubling, indeed.
fifi40

I think you are confusing self esteem with intelligence or genius in a certain sphere.
Self esteem is how one feels about themselves regardless of disability, intelligence or iq.
People who have the relevant skills and intelligence to become doctors will become doctors.............people that dont wont.
People who have self esteem recognise there value whether they are a parent, postman or doctor. They feel good about their contribution. They feel happy and know they have the right to feel as happy and fulfilled as the next person.
You talk about people being 'blind' to differences and pretending that one person is equal to another...............I dont see that in our society...............to put it bluntly, thick people dont qualify to go onto further education to become doctors, lawyers, vets etc........they lack the capability.........society has in place a system where you have to qualify to wield te surgeons knife so to speak. The wheel chair bound person does not expect to be playing for Manchester United.
But can those people who wont gain entry to university or make it onto the football team contribute to society? Can they lead fulfilled lives? Can they be happy? Can they have a high level of self esteem?
Where exactly do you see this 'false sense' of self esteem being encouraged?
In my experience it is probably the other way round in that good self esteem is not encouraged and developed in people.
cognizant dissident

I think Political Correctness started the trend of dumbing down. Lowering the bar. Warping the standards.
Who sets these standards that you speak of Terry? "Society" is a vague term. Is it the leader's of society who set the standards. Hitler? Bush? You?
You are very fond of labels I see. Look at all these false dichotomies you have set up.
In every society there are citizens with varying abilities and disabilities. The natural sorting process is achievement, self-sustaining ability and productivity.
In truth, people can be productive achievers in some phases of their life and less so in others due to aging and illness.
Winners vs Slackers
The very same people can win some competitions and lose others even though they may have worked equally hard in both and "slacking" may have nothing to do with it.
Talent vs Wannabees
Those who are naturally talented, may not be hard workers or productive at all. Other "wannabes" may strive vary hard to develop their talents and become more productive than some in their field who are more natually talented. "Wanting" may be just the impetus needed to motivate a wannabe.
Healthy vs impaired
Again, people can be healthy, then impaired, heal and be healthy again. Health is a very relative state of being and means different things to different people. People fall at every conceivable point on the health spectrum
Educated vs Ignorant
Someone can be very well educated in certain subjects and still remain very ignorant of others. So are they are educated or ignorant? Well it depends whom you ask. Your labels are really just your own subjective judgements that you pronounce as absolutes.
Scientifically informed vs Superstitious and gullible
Again, some scientist may be very well informed in their branches of science and still be fond of the superstitions they were raised with. They could still be trusting and gullible and fall prey to a con man.
Clear thinkers/communicators vs "intuitive" and mystical
You imply that clear thinkers and/or communicators (the two do not necessarily go hand in hand) do not every have moments of intuition. You imply that people who have mystical experiences cannot think or communicate clearly.
Productive, inventive, entrepreneurial vs scammers, boondogglers and criminals
Criminals can be quite inventive and productive and many productive entrepreneurs have been scammers and criminals. Watch the news much?
WHAT IF YOU WEREN'T ALLOWED TO SEE OR NAME THESE DISTINCTIONS?
What if these distinctions are constructions of your own mind that do not exist as some sort of absolute truth about people.
When you aren't allowed to call things AS THEY REALLY ARE you are required to change (the perception of) reality by coloring your descriptions carefully so as to avoid the unpleasant or unfortunate aspects. (Imagine not being allowed to name certain numbers, quantities or functions in arithmetic--what harm would come to measurement, computation and science?)
As I have demonstrated, things and people seldom "are" as the limiting labels we love to slap on them. I can be productive one day and a slacker the next. We are all saints and sinners. How many of us consider ourselves "honest"? I know I do. Have I ever told a lie? Yes. Have you? Do you consider yourself honest? Which is the truth. Are you honest are a liar? Do you consider yourself healthy? Have you every been seriously ill? Which is the truth about you? The "truth" changes from moment to moment as do our pespectives and our judgements. Do you consider yourself scientifically informed? Weren't you a witness at some point? So, are you informed or ignorant and gullible?
The movement to create SELF-ESTEEM destroyed the ability to link reality to perception of it! Why?
False premise. "External Reality" has never been subject to our perceptions of it. On the other hand, "our reality" consists of nothing but our subjective perceptions which can be influenced by many external factors. Try to find the falsehood in that statement. It is the ultimate conundrum. This "movement to create self-esteem you leave undemonstrated". Perhaps it is also just a construct of your own imagination.
It was the destructive philosophy of TELL THEM they are okay (even if they aren't) and they SHALL BE.
Perhaps the "destructive philosophy" was "tell them they are bad and not OK and then they shall strive to be better (or what we want them to be)". All religion has used this destructive philosophy to great effect. Who is the arbiter of what and who is OK? God? The government? You?
Excuses were made for under-achievement:
There were no more cripples, blind, retarded or ignorant people in society suddenly by fiat!
There were IMPAIRED (seeing-impaired, hearing-impaired, learning-impaired) PERSONS everywhere.
The implication being that it was merely a temporary state of being rather than INTRINSIC or ORGANIC
You contradict yourself. If impairment is intrinsic and/or organic then "excuses" are in no way needed for underachievement since it would be out of the person's control. Ignorance is not a learning impairment organic or otherwise. It certainly can be a temporary state and it is not logical to lump it in with the other conditions. You also seem to be assuming that cripples and blind people are under achievers. Ever heard of Beethovan? Have you ever seen crippled people work hard and achieve great things. Literature and the internet are littered with examples. Why do you even try to draw a corelation between the two? All you do is show your own ignorance.
Handicapped parking spots, slanted curbs for wheelchairs, inclusion of impaired persons in regular classrooms soon followed.
These are accomodations to help alleviate the suffering of those less fortunate and less gifted. How does making those accomodations take away from you or society in any way? How would the rest of society be improved by taking away those accomodations?
The school system has fallen victim. Teachers are required to have children in their class that required profound amounts of time and attention including changing diapers on 10 and 12 year old kids. Less time is availabe to tutor advanced students. Consequently, those parents who can afford to--put the advanced students in special magnet schools where they can achieve at their own pace. The public schools are drained of achievers and only the students who really could learn are left to compete with those who get the majority of teacher attention.
More ignorance. These children have their own teachers aides who if they have spare time assist the teacher with other tasks also (at least in Canada).
Truly advanced students often do quite well at their own independent studies and don't require a lot of extra attention. It has always been the case that parents who could afford it sent their children to private schools and provided enrichment programs for them that other less financially fortunate children could not afford. This was true before "impaired" students were ever allowed in regular classrooms.
By treating the autistic, mongoloid or otherwise impaired child as being on the same educational level as those unimpaired by physical or mental defect (you can't even use the word "defect") the philosophical implications multiply.
I don't know of any teachers who do treat them as though they are on the same educational level. In small towns, one room school houses where teachers taught children of all ages and educational levels abounded throughout America. It hasn't seemed to have held America back from progressing in the last century.
The erosion of achievers begins! What use to be a competitive society becomes a society whose NEED trumps all. Genius, achievement, excellence, talent becomes a shameful contrast to those who cannot achieve. So, hiding your brains becomes social survival!
What did society used to be competing for Terry? Wasn't it to fulfill the basic needs for survival but also emotional needs for community and belonging and ego needs for prestige and status. You make it obvious which needs you consider of paramount importance.
In certain ethnic communities (and not others) a shaming and shunning of those who TRY to achieve commences with social consequences! Being smart is labelled in a bad way. (You tryin' to be white!)
This statement I agree with but not I don't agree the cause is allowing "underachievers" into schools. I think it is a basic human competiveness that causes this situation. That of not wanting our fellow man to ahcieve more and do better than we are. So, the problem is caused by the very competiveness that you are touting as a desired state, and perhaps a philosophy of inclusiveness and respect for all and whatever talents they bring to the table would be the solution to this competiveness that seeks to undermine the excellence of others.
The producers in the economy are labelled "FATcats" and people who earn wealth through achievement are seen as greedy bad guys.
Sometimes this is due to human envy as I conceded above. Other times "fat cats" are greedy criminals. (Again, refer to the daily news for examples!)
It is all downhill as the causes and effects multiply. The destruction of achievement-oriented society is a slow poison.
Instead of touting achievement as a panacea for society in and of itself, why not ask the question, what goals is society trying to achieve and are these beneficial or harmful in the long run to society as a whole?
When NEED is broken free from achievement and talent and hard work are punished---the Anti-Intellectual turns the evolutionary imperative upside down!
Human needs have always been the driving force behind achievements and the impetus for the evolution of human society.
Survival of the fittest becomes survival by penalty to the fittest.
It depends on whether you are only concerned with the survival of the fittest human individual or whether you are concerned with the survival of a fit human society. Those needs may not be one and the same.
Imagine a Super Bowl where certain smaller and less talented players are allowed to make runs out-of-bounds and nobody is allowed to tackle them! What what that do to the integrity of the sport? Would it any longer even be a sport or competition? What kind of players would leave and who would be attracted as players? What impact would it have on the fan base?
I don't see the game of football or The Superbowl as having made any overwhelming contributions to the upwards evolution of society. So who cares what impact it has on the fan base? I assume they will find something more productive to do on a Sunday other than enrich the wallets of "fat cats"!
Think about it.
Terry

FiFi40:
You talk about people being 'blind' to differences and pretending that one person is equal to another...............I dont see that in our society...............to put it bluntly, thick people dont qualify to go onto further education to become doctors, lawyers, vets etc........they lack the capability.........society has in place a system where you have to qualify to wield te surgeons knife so to speak. The wheel chair bound person does not expect to be playing for Manchester United.
Where exactly do you see this 'false sense' of self esteem being encouraged?
Here are a few articles you might (or might not) want to consider by various authors:
In psychology, self-esteem or self-worth includes a person's subjective appraisal of himself or herself as intrinsically positive or negative to some degree.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self esteem

http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=876

New York University professor of psychiatry Judith Brook explains that the issue for parents is one of credibility. "Praise is important, but not vacuous praise," she says. "It has to be based on a real thing--some skill or talent they have." Once children hear praise they interpret as meritless, they discount not just the insincere praise, but sincere praise as well.
Scholars from Reed College and Stanford reviewed over 150 praise studies. Their meta-analysis determined that praised students become risk-averse and lack perceived autonomy. The scholars found consistent correlations between a liberal use of praise and students' "shorter task persistence, more eye-checking with the teacher, and inflected speech such that answers have the intonation of questions."
Dweck's research on overpraised kids strongly suggests that image maintenance becomes their primary concern--they are more competitive and more interested in tearing others down. A raft of very alarming studies illustrate this
.
The article indicates that older children and teenagers learn to become cynical about the undeserved praise they receive from parents, teachers, and others. They actually perform better if they receive serious and skilled criticism, rather than empty praise.

*********************************************************************************************************************************************
http://persistentillusion.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/the-self-esteem-movement-explodes/
Hypocrisy.
How can you tell a skinny woman that she is not beautiful because she is ‘anorexic’ and ‘unhealthy’, talk about how beauty is more than appearance, then shove the ‘big is beautiful’ mantra in everyone’s face?
It’s more than an issue of body hypocrisy, it’s an issue of runaway self-esteem.
People should nurture self-confidence, however, it should not be a false confidence either. Mo’nique is not any healthier than a size 0 model.
Happy kids.
Unfortunately, ’super’ self-esteem infiltrated parenting as well. Authorities, teachers, and parents became obsessed with raising the self-esteem of children.
Playground bullies regard themselves as superior to other children; low self-esteem is found among the victims of bullies, but not among bullies themselves. -Baumeister, 2001
But you want your kids to be happy, right? Aaron Cooper of mykidshappiness.com suggests, that when parents pledge allegiance to the happiness of their offspring, too many kids…

Believe that having fun or getting their way are the most important things in life.
Operate as if they’re the center of the universe.

Unfortunately, that’s the heart of the Super Self-Esteem Movement, the yearning for happiness.

*******************************************************************************************************************************************
http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Self-Esteem-Movement-Has-It-All-Wrong&id=806579

The traditional factors that used to dictate our self esteem seem to have lost favor. We used to receive our self esteem from contribution, effort and self discipline. Instead, in my role as Calgary's version of Super Nanny, I now see an increasingly large amount of parents and children who believe self esteem either comes from what they have or should be there simply because they exist. Add to that the fact that our TV adverts are full of buy something because you're 'worth it' and that then leads to the question of how should our worth be determined?
Are we worthy because of we 'have' or because of what we 'do' and should we be teaching the younger generation to feel good about themselves regardless of effort? Could we not give children opportunities and encouragement to succeed without lowering the bar and thereby making their success meaningless. Could we not instead focus on the journey toward self esteem instead of the attainment of it and view it instead as it is a journey in progress. Isn't it important that as individuals we keep on trying, instead of believing that we have 'arrived.'
And are we really worth it, anymore than a refugee in Darfur or a child in Bangladesh? Could it be that our feeling of being worth it has lead to ingrained cultural attitudes that make us believe we are somehow better than other people and deserve more? No, we are luckier and there's the difference. Give your child things because they are 'worth it', regardless of the contribution they have made and you rob your child of the chance to really obtain self esteem, the one that counts anyway.
Terry

I think Political Correctness started the trend of dumbing down. Lowering the bar. Warping the standards.
Who sets these standards that you speak of Terry? "Society" is a vague term. Is it the leader's of society who set the standards. Hitler? Bush? You? You are very fond of labels I see. Look at all these false dichotomies you have set up.
Society is not a vague term. Society is a large number of persons who live together in the same country and who deal with one another.
Societies have identity which distinguishes them from other societies elsewhere. The behavior of the groups within a society develop over time into practical "norms" held by a majority. These "norms" create pressures for conformity.
The SELF-ESTEEM movement was probably started by Nathaniel Branden. It corrupted into an industry and into a meme which proliferated into a consensus philosophy largely held by Liberals and filtered into the public education system.
Terry

In every society there are citizens with varying abilities and disabilities. The natural sorting process is achievement, self-sustaining ability and productivity.
In truth, people can be productive achievers in some phases of their life and less so in others due to aging and illness.
Winners vs Slackers
The very same people can win some competitions and lose others even though they may have worked equally hard in both and "slacking" may have nothing to do with it.
Talent vs Wannabees
Those who are naturally talented, may not be hard workers or productive at all. Other "wannabes" may strive vary hard to develop their talents and become more productive than some in their field who are more natually talented. "Wanting" may be just the impetus needed to motivate a wannabe.
Healthy vs impaired
Again, people can be healthy, then impaired, heal and be healthy again. Health is a very relative state of being and means different things to different people. People fall at every conceivable point on the health spectrum
Educated vs Ignorant
Someone can be very well educated in certain subjects and still remain very ignorant of others. So are they are educated or ignorant? Well it depends whom you ask. Your labels are really just your own subjective judgements that you pronounce as absolutes.
Scientifically informed vs Superstitious and gullible
Again, some scientist may be very well informed in their branches of science and still be fond of the superstitions they were raised with. They could still be trusting and gullible and fall prey to a con man.
Clear thinkers/communicators vs "intuitive" and mystical
You imply that clear thinkers and/or communicators (the two do not necessarily go hand in hand) do not every have moments of intuition. You imply that people who have mystical experiences cannot think or communicate clearly.
Productive, inventive, entrepreneurial vs scammers, boondogglers and criminals
Criminals can be quite inventive and productive and many productive entrepreneurs have been scammers and criminals. Watch the news much?
You are fond of context dropping, aren't you?
When you jump from general to specific or from specific to general you drop context.
In the above cases there is a tendency to distort what I am trying to communicate by your shifts.
What is the premise of my post? Distinguishing one actually existing thing from its opposite and correctly naming it. Why? In order to illustrate what the consequences of misidentifcation are.
What is the premise of your post? If you generalize one distinct group by integrating it into another the distinctions disappear!
For example:
If I said black and white are opposites, you could come along and counter this by saying: "When you combine black and white you get gray. Gray isn't black OR white." Then, you could chide me for being black and white in my thinking. You see? This is intellectually dishonest.
cognizant dissident

Society is not a vague term. Society is a large number of persons who live together in the same country and who deal with one another.
Societies have identity which distinguishes them from other societies elsewhere. The behavior of the groups within a society develop over time into practical "norms" held by a majority. These "norms" create pressures for conformity.
The SELF-ESTEEM movement was probably started by Nathaniel Branden. It corrupted into an industry and into a meme which proliferated into a consensus philosophy largely held by Liberals and filtered into the public education system.
"Society" is a vague term for this discussion as you could be speaking of any number of groups, human society worldwide, North American society, a society of intellectuals, societies of disabled people, a society of liberals or a society of Elitists. (You seem to arguing against societies of disabled persons and for a society of Elitists, which I assume includes intellectuals).
Hmm, I wonder which category Stephen Hawkins falls into? I'm pretty sure he has special aides that assist him physically so that he is able carry out all his intellectual studies. The fact is "human society" contains all of these other societies within it and they all are "reality" of human nature whether you want to include them or not. Society has already tried what you are suggesting and excluded the impaired from daily life. This practice led to many abuses of the disabled and in it's most extreme form, it led to attempts to remove them not just from sight, but from society altogether. Thus the references to Hitler and Euthanasia.
cognizant dissident

You are fond of context dropping, aren't you?
When you jump from general to specific or from specific to general you drop context.
In the above cases there is a tendency to distort what I am trying to communicate by your shifts.
What is the premise of my post? Distinguishing one actually existing thing from its opposite and correctly naming it. Why? In order to illustrate what the consequences of misidentifcation are.
What is the premise of your post? If you generalize one distinct group by integrating it into another the distinctions disappear!
For example:
If I said black and white are opposites, you could come along and counter this by saying: "When you combine black and white you get gray. Gray isn't black OR white." Then, you could chide me for being black and white in my thinking. You see? This is intellectually dishonest.
Actually, this is not intellectually dishonest. Chiding you for your obvious black and white thinking is exactly what I'm attempting to do. I thought that was obvious. I took nothing you said out of context as you provided not context to drop. I was attempting to show that that when you speak in black and white statements such as you were then you end up making such sweeping generalities that they do not serve any useful purpose in everyday life or in describing human beings precisely because human beings and their every day behaviours are filled with subtle nuances and shades of gray.
That the distinctions you try to make "disappear", is exactly the premise of my post. They do not truly exist except for in the dichotomous constructions of your own mind's making! To make such distinctions and tout them as "reality" or "truth" is the height of intellectual dishonesty IMO!
Terry

When you aren't allowed to call things AS THEY REALLY ARE you are required to change (the perception of) reality by coloring your descriptions carefully so as to avoid the unpleasant or unfortunate aspects. (Imagine not being allowed to name certain numbers, quantities or functions in arithmetic--what harm would come to measurement, computation and science?)
As I have demonstrated, things and people seldom "are" as the limiting labels we love to slap on them. I can be productive one day and a slacker the next. We are all saints and sinners. How many of us consider ourselves "honest"? I know I do. Have I ever told a lie? Yes. Have you? Do you consider yourself honest? Which is the truth. Are you honest are a liar? Do you consider yourself healthy? Have you every been seriously ill? Which is the truth about you? The "truth" changes from moment to moment as do our pespectives and our judgements. Do you consider yourself scientifically informed? Weren't you a witness at some point? So, are you informed or ignorant and gullible?
Ahh! So there are no such things as Republicans and Democrats or Nobel Prize Winners or Summa Cum Laude students or Best of Show or Blue Ribbon winners, then?
You mislabel TRUTH. You say truth "changes from moment to moment as do our perspectives and our judgements." This is like saying a race car changes position on the racetrack and therefore cannot be called the same car at the start of the race as it is at each stage up until the end of the race.
You are making this error because you trivialize identity. You confuse the status of a thing with its nature.
Being "informed, ignorant and/or gullible" can only be true within a context. You speak generally as though there are no such things as context. Einstein was informed about physics, ignorant of performing higher math and gullible when it came to politics. Identifying Einstein would have very little to do with what he was uniformed about or ignorant of because he is distinguished among all other men by his achievements in Physics.
I don't see the game of football or The Superbowl as having made any overwhelming contributions to the upwards evolution of society. So who cares what impact it has on the fan base? I assume they will find something more productive to do on a Sunday other than enrich the wallets of "fat cats"!
Missing the point.
Each thread on JWD has a topic which is the premise of the discussion. When you ignore or side-step or deflect the premise of the thread it really devolves into non-topical, non-contextual, non-essentials.
The point about the Super Bowl was that the very nature of a game is destroyed when you allow the rules to be broken by any particpants for whatever reason. The analogy was to the "game of life". Winning is survival and a good life well lived.
I suspect you knew that.
cognizant dissident

Ahh! So there are no such things as Republicans and Democrats or Nobel Prize Winners or Summa Cum Laude students or Best of Show or Blue Ribbon winners, then?
If a Rebublican changes ship and becomes a Democrat, then the "truth" about what that person is has shifted. If I believe in some Democratic principles and some Rebuplican principles (which is in fact the case), then am "I" a Democrat or a Republican?
You mislabel TRUTH. You say truth "changes from moment to moment as do our perspectives and our judgements." This is like saying a race car changes position on the racetrack and therefore cannot be called the same car at the start of the race as it is at each stage up until the end of the race.
Mathematical measurements of space and time, such as the position of race car, are not what I'm referring to. Those may indeed be constants. I don't presume to know enough of physics to argue this point. However, the flaw in your logic, I believe is in trying to apply such mathematical constants to the fluidity of human nature.
You are making this error because you trivialize identity. You confuse the status of a thing with its nature.
I do trivialize "identity". I do not confuse the status of a thing with it's nature though. In fact, it is you who did that when you lumped in "the ignorant" with those with intrinsic organic illnesses. For ignorance can certainly be a temporary state. It is not someone's nature or identity. What I am suggesting is many of these "identities" you labelled people with (slacker, talented, etc), are in fact not their natures at all, but "status" labels of society.
Being "informed, ignorant and/or gullible" can only be true within a context. You speak generally as though there are no such things as context. Einstein was informed about physics, ignorant of performing higher math and gullible when it came to politics. Identifying Einstein would have very little to do with what he was uniformed about or ignorant of because he is distinguished among all other men by his achievements in Physics.
I find this accusation quite ironic Terry because you were the one making sweeping generalities without context in your statements. When I attempted to show how, when specific context (examples) is provided, many of your generalizations do not stand up, you accuse me of doing what in fact you were doing. Me thinks you are projecting slightly!I
don't see the game of football or The Superbowl as having made any overwhelming contributions to the upwards evolution of society. So who cares what impact it has on the fan base? I assume they will find something more productive to do on a Sunday other than enrich the wallets of "fat cats"!
Missing the point.
Yes, I do completely miss the point of football and it's relevance to society, I grant you that. I'm not convinced that millions of people paying huge money to scream maniacally at overgrown men dogpiling on one another to get possession of a little piece of pigskin has any redeeming value to society. At best it distracts the masses from more productive, intellectual, or compassionate pursuits.
Each thread on JWD has a topic which is the premise of the discussion. When you ignore or side-step or deflect the premise of the thread it really devolves into non-topical, non-contextual, non-essentials.
I don't think I'm ignoring the premise of your thread. I think I pointed out the flaws in logic in your sweeping generalizations without context or examples, and you don't like it. Or, perhaps you didn't communicate your premise as effectively as you think?
The point about the Super Bowl was that the very nature of a game is destroyed when you allow the rules to be broken by any particpants for whatever reason. The analogy was to the "game of life". Winning is survival and a good life well lived.
I suspect you knew that.
You suspect incorrectly. I do not think your football analogy fits. The owners of the football players contracts make up the "rules of the game" for football. Who owns human beings and makes up the rules for "winning" and a "life well lived"? Is that a life well lived for an elitist few, only the fittest physically and mentally? Who decides the cut off point for who qualifies for your privileges of a "good life"? Perhaps life is not a competitive game to win. Perhaps it just "is". What do you win anyway? None of us survive in the end. We all die. We all lose in the end.

Are we DESTROYING society through a false sense of SELF-ESTEEM

Share this