Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike McC
(Post 1007890)
The physical limitation she cited was something that we, in the business, call an example. She could have cited a social limitation as well.
|
Business? Anyway, I don't see why this requires defending, I was stating what I was thinking about when I wrote my first reply. I know it was an example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike McC
Really, if you believe in yourself, you can achieve anything has more to do with self esteem and positive self image than anything. Having a high self-esteem lends itself to you trying harder and working further to achieve your goals. You don't get much done if you are a depressed sadsack who can barely get out of bed. You need to have a positive self image. You need to believe in yourself.
|
I don't see how anything anyone has said has disagreed with this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BitVyper
You're missing all the people for whom life isn't about social class and wealth. There's a tendency to measure how successful people are in their lives based on how much money they have and where they sit the social ladder, but the most powerful and inspiring people I've met do not really care too much about that business beyond what is absolutely necessary. Having faith in yourself helps you gain perspective on what you really want as opposed to what you're supposed to want. Of course, they can be one and the same, but then it's the difference between doing something because you're supposed to and doing something because it's what you want.
I mean, of course there are extreme examples of social limitations, like caste systems and non-persons, but no one ever broke out of those by moping and accepting their lot in life.
|
That's actually a great point regarding how to evaluate "success," and I'm a bit guilty of it. It's just a hard thing to evaluate. However, I wasn't insinuating you have to be super rich/powerful/famous.
There aren't just extremes though. Yeah I'm sure there's puppy-dog-sad stories we could cite, in the same way we could cite Oprah-Hollywood-inspiring stories. There are, sadly, marginalized groups beyond these extremes that fall more within the middle that,
yes, would be better off with positive outlooks, but still in or near the gutter thanks to limitations (be they physical, social, emotional, genetic). It's not that uncommon, it's just not talked about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CelesJessa
Alright, you're right, I concede.
I'll correct it: Believing in yourself is pretty nifty and will help you overcome issues that you could already do, but didn't think you could because you didn't believe in yourself. But it's not a magical cure-all that will make you magically capable of doing anything and everything you'd ever want to do. In the mean time, not believing in yourself will hinder you a lot but probably won't stop you from doing things that you are simply awesome at doing..
Huzzah.
|
I like it! Especially the sarcasm! I brought up my concerns to the original posting, in honesty, because I'm concerned when people display the original philosophy as something that's not a dangerous, sweeping assumption. As dangerous and sweeping as assuming the philosophy is also total bull and your mental attitude is meaningless. It does also ignore genetic/early developmental outlooks. Some people literally
do not change, and to them I think the philosophy is useless and even a little condescending. I prefer a more moderate position, and I'd support those of us with more mobility helping those that do not.
Seriously though, I really should get out of bed...I just...you know...I'm so depressed and stuff.