Locke: Reconciling the Law with Happiness

 The main lines of Locke’s natural law theory are as follows: there is a moral law that is ( discoverable by the combined work of reason and sense experience, and binding on human beings in virtue of being decreed by God.  Locke thinks that all human beings are naturally oriented to the pursuit of happiness. This is because we are motivated to pursue things if they promise pleasure and to avoid things if they promise pain. It has seemed to many commentators that these two discussions of moral principles are in tension with each other. On the view described in Law, Locke straightforwardly appeals to reason and our ability to understand the nature of God’s attributes to ground our obligation to follow the law of nature. In other words, what is lawful ought to be followed because God wills it and what is unlawful ought to be rejected because it is not willed by God. Because we can straightforwardly see that God is the law-giver and that we are by nature subordinate to Him, we ought to follow the law. By contrast, in the discussion of happiness and pleasure in the Essay, Locke explains that good and evil reduce to what is pleasurable and what is painful. While he does also indicate that the special categories of good and evil—moral good and moral evil—are no more than the conformity or disagreement between our actions and a law, he immediately adds that such conformity or disagreement is followed by rewards or punishments that flow from the lawmaker’s will. From this discussion, then, it is difficult to see whether Locke holds that it is the reward and punishment that binds human beings to act in accordance with the law, or if it is the fact that the law is willed by God.

One way to approach this problem is to suggest that Locke changed his mind. Because of the thirty-year gap between Law and the Essay, we might be tempted to think that the more rationalist picture, where the law and its authority are based on reason, was the young Locke’s view when he wrote Law. This view, the story would go, was replaced by Locke’s more considered and mature view, hedonism. But this approach must be resisted because both theories are present in early and late works. The role of pleasure and pain with respect to morality is present not only in the Essay, but is invoked in Law (passage quoted at the end of §2c), and many other various minor essays written in the years between Law and Essay (for example, ‘Morality’ (c.1677–78) in Political Essays, 267–69). Likewise, the role of the authority of God's will is retained after Law, again evident in various minor essays (for example, ‘Virtue B’ (1681) in Political Essays, 287-88), Government II.6), Locke’s correspondence (for example, to James Tyrrell, 4 August 1690, Correspondence, Vol.4, letter n.1309) and even in the Essay itself (II.xxviii.8). An answer to how we might reconcile these two positions is suggested when we consider the texts where appeals to both theories are found side-by-side in certain passages.

 

In his essay Of Ethick in General (c. 1686–88) Locke affirms the hedonist view that happiness and misery consist only in pleasure and pain, and that we all naturally seek happiness. But in the very next paragraph, he states that there is an important difference between moral and natural good and evil—the pleasure and pain that are consequences of virtuous and vicious behavior are grounded in the divine will. Locke notes that drinking to excess leads to pain in the form of headache or nausea. This is an example of a natural evil. By contrast, transgressing a law would not have any painful consequences if the law were not decreed by a superior lawmaker. He adds that it is impossible to motivate the actions of rational agents without the promise of pain or pleasure (Of Ethick in General, §8). From these considerations, Locke suggests that the proper foundation of morality, a foundation that will entail an obligation to moral principles, needs two things. First, we need the proof of a law, which presupposes the existence of a lawmaker who is superior to those to whom the law is decreed. The lawmaker has the right to ordain the law and the power to reward and punish. Second, it must be shown that the content of the law is discoverable to humankind (Of Ethick in General, §12). In this text it seems that Locke suggests that both the force and authority of the divine decree and the promise of reward and punishment are necessary for the proper foundation of an obligating moral law.

A similar line of argument is found in the Essay. There, Locke asserts that in order to judge moral success or failure, we need a rule by which to measure and judge action. Further, each rule of this sort has an “enforcement of Good and Evil.” This is because, according to Locke, “where-ever we suppose a Law, suppose also some Reward or Punishment annexed to that Law” (Essay, II.xxviii.6). Locke states that some promise of pleasure or pain is necessary in order to determine the will to pursue or avoid certain actions. Indeed, he puts the point even more strongly, saying that it would be in vain for the intelligent being who decrees the rule of law to so decree without entailing reward or punishment for the obedient or the unfaithful (see also Government, II.7). It seems, then, that reason discovers the fact that a divine law exists and that it derives from the divine will and, as such, is binding. We might think, as Stephen Darwall suggests in The British Moralists and the Internal Ought, that if reason is that which discovers our obligation to the law, the role for reward and punishment is to motivate our obedience to the law. While this succeeds in making room for both the rationalist and hedonist strains in Locke’s view, some other texts seem to indicate that by reason alone we ought to be motivated to follow moral laws.

One striking instance of this kind of suggestion is found in the third book of the Essay where Locke boldly states that “Morality is capable of Demonstration” in the same way as mathematics (Essay, III.xi.16). He explains that once we understand the existence and nature of God as a supreme being who is infinite in power, goodness, and wisdom and on whom we depend, and our own nature “as understanding, rational Beings,” we should be able to see that these two things together provide the foundation of both our duty and the appropriate rules of action. On Locke’s view, with focused attention the measures of right and wrong will become as clear to us as the propositions of mathematics (Essay, IV.iii.18). He gives two examples of such certain moral principles to make the point: (1) “Where there is no Property, there is no Injustice” and (2) “No Government allows absolute Liberty.” He explains that property implies a right to something and injustice is the violation of a right to something. So, if we clearly see the intensional definition of each term, we see that  is necessarily true. Similarly, government indicates the establishment of a society based on certain rules, and absolute liberty is the freedom from any and all rules. Again, if we understand the definitions of the two terms in the proposition, it becomes obvious that  is necessarily true. And, Locke states, following this logic, 1 and 2 are as certain as the proposition that “a Triangle has three Angles equal to two right ones” (Essay, IV.iii.18). If moral principles have the same status as mathematical principles, it is difficult to see why we would need further inducement to use these principles to guide our behavior. While there is no clear answer to this question, Locke does provide a way to understand the role of reward and punishment in our obligation to moral principles despite the fact that it seems that they ought to obligate by reason alone.

Early in the Essay, over the course of giving arguments against the existence of innate ideas, Locke addresses the possibility of innate moral principles. He begins by saying that for any proposed moral rule human beings can, with good reason, demand justification. This precludes the possibility of innate moral principles because, if they were innate, they would be self-evident and thus would not be candidates for justification. Next, Locke notes that despite the fact that there are no innate moral principles, there are certain principles that are undeniable, for example, that “men should keep their Compacts.” However, when asked why people follow this rule, different answers are given. A “Hobbist” will say that it is because the public requires it, and the “Leviathan” will punish those who disobey the law. A “Heathen” philosopher will say that it is because following such a law is a virtue, which is the highest perfection for human beings. But a Christian philosopher, the category to which Locke belongs, will say that it is because “God, who has the Power of eternal Life and Death, requires it of us” (Essay, I.iii.5). Locke builds on this statement in the following section when he notes that while the existence of God and the truth of our obedience to Him is made manifest by the light of reason, it is possible that there are people who accept the truth of moral principles, and follow them, without knowing or accepting the “true ground of Morality; which can only be the Will and Law of God” (Essay, I.iii.6). Here Locke is suggesting that we can accept a true moral law as binding and follow it as such, but for the wrong reasons. This means that while the Hobbist, the Heathen, and the Christian might all take the same law of keeping one’s compacts to be obligating, only the Christian does it for the right reason—that God’s will requires our obedience to that law. Indeed, Locke states that if we receive truths by revelation they too must be subject to reason, for to follow truths based on revelation alone is insufficient (see Essay, IV.xviii).

Now, to determine the role of pain and pleasure in this story, we turn to Locke’s discussion of the role of pain and pleasure in general. He says that God has joined pains and pleasures to our interaction with many things in our environment in order to alert us to things that are harmful or helpful to the preservation of our bodies (Essay, II.vii.4). But, beyond this, Locke notes that there is another reason that God has joined pleasure and pain to almost all our thoughts and sensations: so that we experience imperfections and dissatisfactions. He states that the kinds of pleasures that we experience in connection to finite things are ephemeral and not representative of complete happiness. This dissatisfaction coupled with the natural drive to obtain happiness opens the possibility of our being led to seek our pleasure in God, where we anticipate a more stable and, perhaps, permanent happiness. Appreciating this reason why pleasure and pain are annexed to most of our ideas will, according to Locke, lead the way to the ultimate aim of the enquiry in human understanding—the knowledge and veneration of God (Essay, II.vii.5–6). So, Locke seems to be suggesting here that pain and pleasure prompt us to find out about God, in whom complete and eternal happiness is possible. This search, in turn, leads us to knowledge of God, which will include the knowledge that He ought to be obeyed in virtue of His decrees alone. Pleasure and pain, reward and punishment, on this interpretation, are the means by which we are led to know God’s nature, which, once known, motivates obedience to His laws. This mechanism supports Locke’s claim that real happiness is to be found in the perfection of our intellectual nature—in embarking on the search for knowledge of God, we embark on the intellectual journey that will lead to the kind of knowledge that brings permanent pleasure. This at least suggests that the knowledge of God has the happy double-effect of leading to both more stable happiness and the understanding that God is to be obeyed in virtue of His divine will alone.

But given that all human beings experience pain and pleasure, Locke needs to explain how it is that certain people are virtuous, having followed the experience of dissatisfaction to arrive at the knowledge of God, and other people are vicious, who seek pleasure and avoid pain for no reason other than their own hedonic sensations.

 

HYPERINFORMATION

Technology has allowed us to accumulate more data than we need and more information than requested. Only knowledge can get us out of this saturation, if managed properly.

 

The interest in knowledge, its acquisition and its use is an old theme. It has to do with intelligence and knowledge. It takes a lot of information to create small amounts of true knowledge. Historically, it was philosophy that was in charge of theorizing and explaining everything related to knowledge and wisdom, and there are modern areas of it, such as epistemology, that deal with the validity and limits of knowledge and cognitive causes.

 

After years of producing, handling, storing and transmitting information of all kinds, a saturation level known as “Information Glut” has been reached. Not only has it generated a new discipline, "Cognitive Science", but knowledge management is also related to technological creativity, innovation and the competitiveness of companies, because by adopting strategies based on knowledge, companies can be created more profitable and much better in terms of human relations.

 

Digital technology, as is well known, arises for data management and calculations. The data in turn constitute the basis of the information. The latter is the basic component of knowledge. A concatenation widely publicized, simplistic and used over and over again, which, however, serves to point out that it was logical to come to give importance to knowledge after years of production, handling, storage and transmission of information of all kinds.

 

Years in which more data than necessary has been accumulated and more information has been generated than requested simply because digital technology, computers and, later, telecommunication networks and the Internet, allowed it. And not only in that is the key to the current importance of knowledge, but in the existence of very powerful means for managing it. Without them Knowledge Management would not have been possible.

 

Since from a certain moment science gave rise to special knowledge and today there is a multitude of different types of knowledge, there has been a need to confront the phenomenon of human knowledge through very disparate disciplines. Knowledge Sciences: Psychology, anthropology, education, linguistics, neurology, artificial intelligence and, of course, philosophy itself, form today, all together, what is known as "Knowledge Science" (Cognitive Science ).

 

And it is not just a name, but with such a denomination there are faculties, university degrees, institutes, research centers and formal work groups in most of the universities of the United States and England. The origin of this new interdisciplinary science is usually located in the 50s of the last century, when researchers from different fields of knowledge began to develop theories of the human mind supported by complex graphic representations and calculation procedures (algorithms).

 

As direct predecessors of the concern for information and knowledge, it is possible to point out well-known figures from the 20th and late 19th centuries, such as Fritz Machlup (1902-1983), C. P. Snow (1905-1980), Michael Polanyi (1891-1976) and Alfred Marshall himself (1842-1924).

 

Knowledge and Innovation: There is perhaps another reason for the importance of knowledge today, which is closer to the world of business and management. It is about the concern for technological creativity, product research and development, and innovation. For years, too, the company has based much of its potential for success on these activities and has eagerly sought out among its employees those with skills related to them. The same can be said of those endowed with talent for management, for sales, for negotiation or for the formulation of strategies.

 

Many companies today practice knowledge management, while others prefer to talk about talent management. They are both similar. The first emphasizing the formal knowledge accumulated by certain people, their experience and their wisdom and criteria; and the second on the innate abilities of others. The formal concern of American companies for something called "Knowledge Management (KM)" arose in 1992 from a report by Giga Information Group based on data collected at the end of 1998.

 

Competitiveness Factor: Said report confirmed the existence of panic among American businessmen because they had heard that something called “KM” would from then on be the only element of the company capable of generating competitive advantages. According to one of the basic books on the subject, "The Knowledge Management Toolkit", American managers then began to ask their "IT" departments for advice on the subject and to demand that the information be more related to knowledge

 

Living under suspicion, appearances.

The truth does not matter, but who can install it.

 

F. Nietzsche maintains, "the appearance is the living reality itself acting that, ironic with itself, had come to make me believe that here there is nothing but appearance, will-o'-the-wisps, goblin dances and nothing else."

The installation of a 'truth', be it by any group, solely by the use of the power they usually exercise, leads to producing an incongruous situation, on the one hand the enlightened believers in possessing the truth and on the other the total skepticism of not considering that it is possible to achieve a certain degree of veracity.

In the first case, the enlightened ones, José Rafael Herrera, expresses: “As is known, every sentence –every oratio– is made up of a verb and a predicate. In Spinoza's key, verb is principle, substance. Predicate is attribute and mode. Preaching is the action of those who predict, of those who are empowered to anticipate what is imminent and say-it-before. He is, then, the one who warns, because his function consists precisely in preaching the verb, the truth that he already knows, because it has been revealed to him. The "bearer of the truth" anticipates the event, warns what is coming and, therefore, must take the pre-visions and act accordingly. He is, all of him, an "illuminated" by the effect of the spark, by the radiance of divine revelation. He is the glare itself of the flash in the face of the bearer of the "philosophy of the gun". And that was what Isabella the Catholic could see in Torquemada's sullen countenance –and still smudged by the abrasive flashes of truth–: at the queen's request, and by means of a bull issued by Pope Sixtus IV, the bruciante is appointed general inquisitor, directly dependent on the Spanish Crown. His cruelty and fanaticism against the "enemies of the Christian faith" - particularly against the Jews - are still the object of astonishment. Spain has paid dearly –and with it a good part of the western world– for the hatred spread by that sinister character, in the name of truth”. How many 'bruciantes', 'torquemadas', exist and are imposing their truths on the rest of society, as possessors, illuminated by a superior being, of the absolute truth.

At the other extreme, skepticism, which leads us to think that nothing is true, and that even this is not true either, leaves us in not being able to know, in that knowledge, not even as a form of adaptation and mastery of the nature is useless.

In ancient times, Plato already warns of the need to respond to this dilemma and in the "Allegory of the cave" he expresses that the world we observe, which we call reality, is appearance. The true, the truth is beyond what we see, in another dimension, it is not in this world. If the truth is absolute, there is no room for lack, it cannot be a part, it has to be the whole. For what he solves it by creating a world of 'Archetypes', today we would say in another dimension, of which what we see are more or less similar copies.

 

Darío Sztajnszrajber, a contemporary argentinian philosopher, maintains “the question of truth moves between two poles: it exists and it is impossible, or it does not exist. Although it does not exist, you cannot stop looking for it, but if it exists, it is not for us”

Aristotle, he maintained, that 'the truth is hidden behind appearances, so it must be revealed'. Plato's archetypes were located in things, in reality, in essences, which must be apprehended, made conscious.

The truth must be sought, it slips away from our gaze like a wild animal that feels the danger of being found and devoured.

“Doing philosophy is the permanent construction of an existential insecurity; we flee when we fight with the certainties of that numbness that we provoke at the same time, because we seek a knowledge that we know we will never achieve”

Which means living in appearance, in the shadows.

“The penumbra has the property of not allowing us to perceive where the darkness ends and where the light begins. Its somber circular presence does not allow to pinpoint exactly the beginning of one and the end of the other. Not without a certain risk - which, led by the hand of the temptation of his unique beauty, may well seem divine, like almost all risks - it is possible to read in the dark. Saving the enchantment from the risk in question is the fact of being able to perceive a certain magic in the blurred characters that, suddenly, come to life and that allow surprising, for the daring gaze, and behind the dead letter, nothing less than the Spirit: the Logos re-gaining immanent reality, exercising the purity of the fire that is his being and that, at the same time, is not. The philosophy itself, that is to say, the one that involves an emphatic sense, undoubtedly lives between lights and shadows for the sake of ideas. Only one who has penetrated the thickest darkness can conquer the light of truth: “in the circle the beginning and the end coincide”, observes, in the gloom, the dark Ephesus (Heraclitus).”

For his part, Darío Sztajnszrajber expressed that currently “the real-apparent dichotomy is an archaic category, it makes no sense in the digital age” and that “technology does not destroy or improve human beings, it transforms them”. , problematized the concepts of truth and lies in today's society”. “Post-truth has to do with lying, with lying to oneself. The opposite of truth is not lies, it is fiction, appearance,” he said. In relation to what we conceive as reality, he assured that it is a social construction. “The most interesting thing is that the spectacle of the spectacle convinces. Everyone knows it isn't, but it doesn't seem to matter.

J. A. López, contemporary spanish philosopher,  maintains that “perhaps this absent life that we lead, where the virtual gains ground over reality, is not so bad, deep down. We lose one dimension, yes, but we gain another. Perhaps we are not very present in the place where we are, but the photos and the comments that we post about it build another that resembles it. Isn't that, for better or worse, what we've always done? We create our own imaginary world - built with our perceptions, our impressions, our expectations... - and we develop in it as if it were real. In that game of “as if…” resides the meaning, which is complete in itself, and is closer to us than the always fragmentary reality”.

 

The search for a way to return to an objective reality, independent of the observer, is an effort that even scientists keep awake.

Thus S. Hawkins says: "Philosophers, from Plato to now, have argued over the centuries about the nature of reality. Classical science is based on the belief that there is a real external world whose properties are defined and independent of the perceiving observer. According to classical science, certain objects exist and have physical properties, such as velocity and mass, with well-defined values. In that view, our theories are attempts to describe such objects and their properties, and our measurements and perceptions correspond to them. Both the observer and the observed are parts of a world that has an objective existence, and any distinction between the two is of no significant importance."…however “Different theories can describe the same phenomenon through frameworks different conceptual concepts”… and “David Hume (1711-1776) wrote that although we have no rational warrant for believing in an objective reality, we do not you have no choice but to act as if said reality were true.” That is why he proposes “There is no image —or theory— independent of the concept of reality. Thus, we will adopt a perspective that we will call model-dependent realism: the idea that a physical theory or a picture of the world is a model (usually of a mathematical nature) and a set of rules that relate the elements of the model to the observations. This provides a framework in which to interpret modern science.”

About this we can say: “We have always lived in a parallel world: that of our fantasies, our fears and our hopes. Now we have made it faster and bigger. If that ends up dragging our life, and turning it into "liquid", as Zygmunt Bauman reflects, perhaps it is because we do not want to be in it, because we do not dare to stay and prefer to run and run, ... Life was already an illusion, sometimes happy and others terrible.”

“The denial of the truth leads us towards a life empty of facts. Which also denies knowledge, where there is no truth, there is no knowledge. To later sink into ignorance of a reality, which ends up denying the facts. While the present is diluted between desires and illusions, which feed a life of collective unconsciousness. This is one of the realities where the social masses develop. Domesticated and chained to an existence of darkness, which runs through the corridors of the labyrinths of shared ignorance. The truth will always be denied by the unconscious crowds, because the truth destroys their useless illusions and unfulfilled desires.”

We are here faced with the loss of meaning of the error category.

There can no longer be truth, there is no possibility of confronting it with reality, because reality is illusion.

Everything is mere illusion, desire, darkness, which hides the truth from us. Affirming something is taken as an attempt to install a lie, pass it off as truth, without understanding that to lie it is necessary to know the truth. For lying is a moral concept. On the other hand, from a gnoseological perspective, error and misunderstanding are the opposite of truth.

       And the possibility of the 'conspiracy theory' comes to us. "The truth does not matter, but who can install it."

 

How to enjoy everything that life offers you.

 

Dyer Wayne. Your wrong areas.

 

In the first place, and this will be the most obvious, you will see that they are people who enjoy virtually everything that life offers them; people who are comfortable doing anything and don't waste time complaining or wishing things were different. They have a zest for life and want everything they can get out of it.

 

 

They like to go on excursions, go to the movies, read, play sports, attend concerts, visit cities, farms, look at animals, mountains and really almost everything. They like life. When you are around people like this, you will notice the absence of moans and even passive sighs. If it rains, they like it. If it's hot they enjoy it instead of complaining. Whether they're stuck in traffic, or at a party, or all alone, they just do their best. It is not about enjoying everything that happens, but about a wise acceptance of what is, a rare ability to delight in reality. Ask them what they don't like and they'll have a hard time giving you an honest answer. They don't act as sensibly as sheltering from the rain by sheltering indoors, because they find the rain beautiful, exhilarating, and something worth experiencing. They like. The mud does not infuriate them: they look at it, splash around in it, and accept it as part of what it means to be alive. Do you like cats? Yes. The bears? Yes. The worms? Yes. And although nuisances like diseases, droughts, mosquitoes, floods and other calamities do not give them pleasure or they accept them with enthusiasm, they are people who do not spend their present moments complaining about them or wishing they were not. If certain situations have to be destroyed, they will try to destroy them. And they will enjoy doing it. No matter how hard you try, you will have a hard time discovering something they don't like to do. They really love life and really immerse themselves in it enjoying everything that it gives them.

 

Healthy, fulfilled people are free from the guilt and all the anxiety that comes from using the present moment to get immobilized by events that happened in the past. They can certainly acknowledge that they've made mistakes and can promise each other to avoid repeating certain behaviors that backfired in some way, but they don't waste their time regretting something they did that they wish they hadn't, or being upset because they dislike something they did at some point. of his past life. Total lack of guilt is one of the characteristics of healthy people. No regrets about what happened and no efforts to get others to pick the blame by asking such vain questions as "Why didn't you do it differently?" or "Aren't you ashamed of yourself?" who know how to recognize that life already lived is that, and that no matter how bad one feels about it, nothing can be done to change what happened.They themselves feel free of guilt without any effort: because it is natural, they never help others to choose the blame. They realize that feeling bad in the present moment only reinforces a person's poor self-image and that it is much better to learn from the past than to protest the past. You will never see them manipulating others. Telling them how bad they've been, nor can you manipulate them with the same tactics. They won't get mad at you, they just won't listen to you, they'll ignore you. Instead of getting mad at you, they'll leave or change the subject. they work so well c With most people they completely fail with these very healthy beings. Instead of making themselves or others miserable with feelings of guilt, they calmly, unceremoniously put the guilt aside when it comes their way.

 

Similarly free people from erroneous zones do not torment themselves with worries. Some circumstances that could drive other people crazy hardly affect these individuals. They are neither future planners nor future savers. They refuse to worry about what will happen in the future and keep themselves free from the anxiety that accompanies worry. They don't know how to worry. It is not part of his way of being. It is not that they are necessarily calm all the time but they are not willing to spend their present moments suffering for things that may happen in the future and over which they have no control. They are mainly oriented towards their present moments, and they have an internal signal that seems to remind them that all worries must happen in the present moment, and that this is a very silly way to live their present. These people now live in the present and not in the past or in the future. They do not feel threatened by the unknown and seek out new experiences that are unfamiliar to them. They love ambiguity. They enjoy the now on all occasions convinced that it is all they have. They do not make plans for a future event, allowing long periods of inactivity to pass while they wait for this event. The moments between events are as liveable as the events themselves, and these people have a rare ability to get as much joy out of their daily lives as possible. They are not "procrastinators" or those who save in case bad times come, and although our culture does not approve of their behavior, they do not feel threatened by self-reproach! They appreciate and enjoy their happiness now and when the future comes and becomes the present they appreciate and enjoy it too. These individuals always enjoy because they simply realize how absurd it is to wait to enjoy. It is a very natural way of living life, a bit like an animal or a child. They are too busy fully realizing the present moment while most people live expecting payoffs without ever being able to catch them when they come. These very healthy people are remarkably independent. They are people who are outside the nest, and although they may feel great love for their family and be very attached to it, they think that independence is more important than dependence in all human relationships. They know how to appreciate very well their own independence, not depending on what others can do. Their human relationships are based on mutual respect for the individual's right to make their own decisions. The love of these people does not imply the imposition of their own values ​​on the loved one. They give great importance to the intimacy of the human being; which can make others feel rejected. They like to be alone sometimes, and they take great care to protect their privacy. They don't get romantically involved with a lot of people. They are selective when it comes to love, but they are also deeply affectionate. Dependent and unhealthy people find it difficult to love beings like this because they are very intransigent when it comes to their individual freedom. If someone needs them, they reject this need as they find it detrimental to the other person as well as to themselves. They want the people they love to be independent, to make their own choices and live their lives for themselves. And although they may enjoy others and want to be in their company, they want even more so that others can get by without crutches and without supports. So, the moment you start to lean on these people, you will realize that they start to disappear first emotionally and then physically as well. They refuse to depend on people and be depended on in a caring, caring relationship, but encourage their self-confidence almost from the start by offering lots of love at every opportunity.

You will find very little approval seeking among these happy and fulfilled individuals. They are able to function without the approval and applause of others. They don't seek honor like most people do.

 

They are very independent of the opinion of others, practically not caring if the other person likes what they say or do. They are not trying to shock anyone or gain their approval. These are people who are internally driven and who don't really care or care about other people's evaluation of their behavior. It's not that they're insensitive to applause or approval: they don't seem to need it. They can even be gruff because they are honest and don't wrap their messages in carefully thought-out phrases to please others. If you want to know what they think, that's exactly what they'll tell you. Likewise, when you say something about them, you will not destroy or immobilize them with your words and opinions. They will use the information you give them, filter it through their own values, and use what works for their own benefit and growth. They do not need to be loved by everyone, nor do they have an excessive need for approval. They recognize that there will always be those who disapprove of what they do. They are unusual beings in the sense that they are capable of functioning as themselves, and not as dictated by a third party. When you look at these individuals, you notice a lack of enculturation. They are not rebels, but they make their own choices even though those choices conflict with what everyone else is doing. They are able to ignore the little unimportant rules and calmly ignore the useless conventions that are such an important part of many people's lives. They are NOT fond of attending "cocktail parties" nor do they make conversation because good manners advise it. They are masters of themselves and although they consider that social life is an important part of their lives, they refuse to let it rule them or become slaves to it. They do not attack rebelliously but internally they know when to overlook certain things and they function with a clear mind and in a sensible way.

 

They are people who accept themselves without complaint. They know that they are human beings and that being human implies certain human attributes. They know what their physical aspect is and they accept it. IF they are tall, perfect, but if they are short too. Baldness is fine, as is thick hair.

They can withstand sweat. They do not distort their physical appearance. They have accepted themselves and therefore they are the most natural people. No hiding behind artifice or apologizing for who they are. They do NOT know how to be offended by anything that is human. They love themselves and accept everything in nature as it is instead of wishing it were different. They never complain about things they can't change like heat waves, thunderstorms, or cold water. They accept themselves and the world as it is.

Without pretense, without regrets, with a simple acceptance. Though they've been around for many years, you won't hear them putting themselves down or subtly wishing for the impossible. You will see active people act, the doers. You will see how they take the natural world and enjoy everything it offers.

They appreciate the natural world. They love being outdoors enjoying nature, happily exploring everything that is still intact, original and has not yet been damaged. She loves mountains, sunsets, rivers, flowers, trees, animals, and virtually all flora and fauna. As people they are naturalists, not pretentious or ceremonious and they love the naturalness of the universe. They are not busy looking for bars, taverns, night clubs, conventional parties, smoke-filled rooms and the like, although they are certainly quite capable of fully enjoying these types of activities. They are at peace with nature, God's world, if you will, though they are quite capable of functioning in a man-made world. They are also capable of appreciating what is no longer of interest to others. They never get tired of a sunset or a hike through the woods. The sight of a bird in flight is always an admirable sight. Just as they never tire of looking at a worm or a cat giving birth to her kittens. Over and over again, they never tire of spontaneously appreciating what life brings them. Some people find this to be a very artificial attitude but they don't realize what other people think. They are too busy being amazed by the breadth of possibilities that life offers them to fully realize themselves in the present moment.

 

They have a very special perception regarding the behavior of others and what may seem complex and indecipherable to others, is clear and understandable to them. The problems that immobilize so many people are often just minor annoyances to them. This lack of emotional commitment to problems allows them to cross barriers that for many are insurmountable. They have clear perceptions about themselves and immediately recognize what others are trying to do to them. They can shrug their shoulders and overlook things that make others angry and immobilized. And certain things that can confuse many people who find them insoluble, do not frighten them and rather consider them as simple and easy to solve. They are not monopolized by the problems of their emotional world. For these people, a problem is really just an obstacle to overcome and not a reflection of who they are or aren't as people. Their self-worth is located within themselves, so that any external problem can be seen objectively, and not, in any case, as a threat or a challenge to their own worth. This is one of their most difficult personality traits to understand, as most people feel threatened by external events, ideas, or other people. But independent and healthy beings do not know how to feel threatened and this characteristic makes them the ones who seem threatening to others.

They never fight uselessly. They are not in favor of self-promotion to attract attention to themselves. If the fight can bring about a change, then they will fight but they will never fight uselessly. They are not martyrs. They are doers.

They are also people who help others. They usually work on things that make life more pleasant or more tolerable for others. They are warriors on the forefront of social change, but they don't take their struggles with them to bed at night as a breeding ground for ulcers, heart disease, or other physical disorders. They are incapable of stereotyping. Often they are not even aware of the physical differences of people including racial, ethnic, morphological or sexual. They are not shallow people who judge others by their outward appearance. And although they may seem selfish and concerned only with their own pleasure, in reality they spend much of their time dedicated to serving others. Why? Because they like to do it.

 

They are not sick people. They do not believe in the immobility caused by colds and headaches. They believe in their own ability to get rid of those illnesses and they don't go around telling others how bad they feel, how tired they are, or what illnesses are currently infecting their body.

They treat their bodies well. They love themselves and therefore eat well, exercise regularly (as a way of life), and refuse to experience the kind of ailments that disable many people for various lengths of time. They like to live well, and so they do.

Another characteristic of these fully functioning individuals is honesty. His answers are not evasive or intended to lie about anything. They see lying as a distortion of their own reality and refuse to engage in any kind of behavior that serves to deceive themselves. And although they are discreet people, they will avoid having to distort the truth to protect people. They know they are in charge of their own world and others are too. Thus they behave in a way that others may often consider cruel, but in reality what they do is simply let others make their own decisions. They efficiently deal with what is, instead of what they would like it to be.

These people do not blame others. Their personality orientation is internal and they refuse to hold others responsible for who they are. For the same reason, they do not waste much time talking about others, nor are they obsessed with what others do or do not do. They don't talk about people, they talk to them! They do not blame others; they help others and themselves to put responsibility where it belongs. They do not get into gossip or spread biased and evil information. They are so busy living their own lives efficiently that they don't have time to deal with the trifles that clutter many people's lives. Makers do. Critics blame and complain. These individuals do not care much about order, organization, or systems in their lives. They practice self-discipline but have no need for things and people to fit their own perceptions of what things should be. They are not full of "shoulds" regarding the conduct of others. They believe that everyone is entitled to their choices and that the little things that drive other people crazy are simply the result of someone else's decision. They do not believe that the world must be somehow special. They do not care much about order and cleanliness. They exist in a functional way and if everything is not as they would like it to be, they find that to be correct as well. For these people, the organization is simply a useful way of acting and not an end in itself. And it is precisely because of this lack of organizational neurosis that they are creative. They tackle anything in their own unique way, whether it's making a bowl of soup, writing a report, or mowing the lawn. They apply their imagination to their actions and the result is a creative way of doing things. They don't feel obligated to do things a certain way. They don't consult manuals or talk to experts: they simply attack the problem in the way that seems most appropriate to them. This is called creativity; and without exception, they have it.

These are people with especially high energy levels. They seem to need less sleep and yet feel stimulated by life. They live and are healthy. You can muster tremendous bursts of energy to complete a task because you choose to engage in it by viewing it as an exciting activity that you do in the present moment. This energy is not supernatural: it is simply the result of your love of life and all the activities it provides. They don't know how to be bored. All life events offer opportunities to do, think, feel and live, and they know how to apply their energy in almost all circumstances. If imprisoned, they would engage their minds in creative ramblings to avoid the paralysis of disinterest. There is no boredom in their lives because they channel the same energy that others have in ways that are productive for themselves.

 

They are aggressively curious. They never know enough. They always seek more and want to learn each and every present moment of their lives. They are not worried about doing it right or having done it wrong. If something doesn't pan out, or doesn't do much good, then it's discarded rather than regretted. They are truth seekers in the sense of learning things, always stimulated by the possibility of learning more and never believing that they are already a finished product. If they are with a barber they are interested in the problems of that trade. They never feel superior or act as if they were, bragging about their merits for others to applaud. They learn from children, stockbrokers, and animals. They want to know more about what it means to be a blacksmith or a cook, a whore or the vice president of a corporation. They are students who learn, not teachers who teach. They never have enough knowledge and they don't know how to behave like snobs or feel superior since they never feel that way. Each person, each object, each event represents an opportunity to learn more. And they are aggressive in their attitudes towards their interests, not expecting the information to come their way but going after it. They are not afraid to talk to a waitress, or ask the dentist what it feels like to have your hands in people's mouths all day, or ask a poet the meaning of this or that phrase.

They are not afraid of failure. They do not equate success in a company with success as a human being. Since their self-worth comes from within, they may look at external events objectively and simply think that they are efficient and positive or inefficient and negative. They know that failure is only an index of other people's opinion and they should not be afraid of it since it cannot affect their self-worth. Thus, they dare to try anything, to participate in things simply because it is fun and they are not afraid to have to explain themselves. Likewise, they never choose anger that immobilizes. Using the same logic (without having to rethink it each time since it has become a way of life), they do not tell themselves that other people should behave differently than usual or that the facts should be different. . They accept others as they are and work to change the facts that displease them. Thus, anger is impossible because there are no false or exaggerated pretensions. These people are able to eliminate emotions that are somehow self-destructive and encourage those that help them grow.