Philosophy of Life Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Philosophy of Life - Essay Example This is based on the premise that all of us are equipped with an evolutionary drive, which instinctively prods us to do our best, because in this world, it is all about the survival of the fittest. If we do not do well, we may perish, and this keeps us on our feet from birth onwards, as we grow, and learn to support ourselves. If we choose the field to which we are best suited, and for which we have a passion, we live at our fullest, because the job satisfaction in this case is very high. Moreover, our chances of survival and success are heightened. If we succeed in our lives, we can live in the best conditions possible and offer the best opportunities to our offspring. To achieve success, it is also assumed that persistent hard work is the key. Hard work on the part of each of us ensures that the economy of the nation continues to grow and living conditions improve. If each of us does our job, and does it well while taking a pride in it, chances are that we flourish as a civilization. Those in the field of science and technology take us into our future, those who are in the art scene add aesthetic value to our lives, those in conservation protect our forests, those in political roles lead us well, doctors keep us healthy-- down to the cab driver and the cleaning woman; each of us has a real contribution to make. Also important in this regard is the assumption that the moral standards of society are followed. In order to survive as a community and a nation, it is essential that each and every one of us follows a distinct moral code, which enjoins that all earnings are the fruits of hard labour, and not gained through unfair means like cheating, forgery, robbery, extortion and so on. If people try to succeed by hook or by crook, crime levels will rise, and society may reach a point of breakdown. The person who works hard to earn an honest living contributes to the society , and is useful not only to his family but his nation as a whole, so this is the first good reason to support my philosophy of life. In developed countries, it is important that the citizens work hard to keep their economies growing, to educate their children so they can carry on the responsibilities of the previous generation, to make forays into science and technology, develop alternative energy resources, and improve living standards and health care for the nation as a whole. In developing nations it is even more important that the citizens work honestly and very hard, because they have a long way to go in order to achieve economic power. They need to find their favorite fields of work and do their job with a passion if they want to survive as a nation in this new century. Secondly, a lot of the disharmony, war and crime we see around us is because people are unfulfilled. Economic inequities lead to political instigation and social discontent. But in a society where everyone works hard for a living at a job they love well, and earns sufficient remuneration in exchange, less people are inclined to create trouble, because everyone is occupied and has no time for mischief; and they all know that any disturbance will jeopardize their current prosperity. And if a country as a whole prospers due to the efforts of its citizens, it is less likely to get into a war, which can only harm its interests and drain its

How did the term 'Butskellism' arise Was it justified Essay

How did the term 'Butskellism' arise Was it justified - Essay Example In this paper the historical view will look at the content of ‘consensus’ and how it emerged and was translated into actual policies. In short what actually was the postwar consensus? There onwards the academic debate which surrounds and is continuing as we write; so to speak; will be examined. The core questions like; was it a consensus or was it political rivalries misnamed as consensus? Was it an elite consensus or a broad consensus of electorate to the political center? Reference will also be made to the consensus or otherwise of the interest groups (trade unions etc.). An attempt will be made to situate this discussion within the overall structural matrix of British Political System. The purpose is to show that the structure and the dynamics within, actually construct constraints and boundaries which form the context of UK Politics and any radicalism/drastic change is perceived as out of context. This argument will be supported by a brief comparative political analy sis with mainland European model. It will also be supported by referring to the underlying core value structure of UK, which forms the basis of any socio-political construct. The consensus has probably always existed in British Politics, in its different variants, within the confines of practically two-party parliamentary system. This will be demonstrated in the later part of this paper, as for now, as a point of departure of this paper, it is suffice to address the ‘postwar consensus’ and it’s ‘moderately satirical’ Economist typification as Butskellism. It is perhaps an erroneous assertion to call consensus; postwar. It did not spring up suddenly between two political antagonists just after the Second World War. The War time Conservative government was a consensus government. The achievements of the Coalition Government of 1940-45 are termed as the harbinger of postwar-consensus (Addison.1975). Our assertion however is that consensus is the quintessential British Political

How did the term 'Butskellism' arise Was it justified Essay

How did the term 'Butskellism' arise Was it justified - Essay Example In this paper the historical view will look at the content of ‘consensus’ and how it emerged and was translated into actual policies. In short what actually was the postwar consensus? There onwards the academic debate which surrounds and is continuing as we write; so to speak; will be examined. The core questions like; was it a consensus or was it political rivalries misnamed as consensus? Was it an elite consensus or a broad consensus of electorate to the political center? Reference will also be made to the consensus or otherwise of the interest groups (trade unions etc.). An attempt will be made to situate this discussion within the overall structural matrix of British Political System. The purpose is to show that the structure and the dynamics within, actually construct constraints and boundaries which form the context of UK Politics and any radicalism/drastic change is perceived as out of context. This argument will be supported by a brief comparative political analy sis with mainland European model. It will also be supported by referring to the underlying core value structure of UK, which forms the basis of any socio-political construct. The consensus has probably always existed in British Politics, in its different variants, within the confines of practically two-party parliamentary system. This will be demonstrated in the later part of this paper, as for now, as a point of departure of this paper, it is suffice to address the ‘postwar consensus’ and it’s ‘moderately satirical’ Economist typification as Butskellism. It is perhaps an erroneous assertion to call consensus; postwar. It did not spring up suddenly between two political antagonists just after the Second World War. The War time Conservative government was a consensus government. The achievements of the Coalition Government of 1940-45 are termed as the harbinger of postwar-consensus (Addison.1975). Our assertion however is that consensus is the quintessential British Political

How did the term 'Butskellism' arise Was it justified Essay

How did the term 'Butskellism' arise Was it justified - Essay Example In this paper the historical view will look at the content of ‘consensus’ and how it emerged and was translated into actual policies. In short what actually was the postwar consensus? There onwards the academic debate which surrounds and is continuing as we write; so to speak; will be examined. The core questions like; was it a consensus or was it political rivalries misnamed as consensus? Was it an elite consensus or a broad consensus of electorate to the political center? Reference will also be made to the consensus or otherwise of the interest groups (trade unions etc.). An attempt will be made to situate this discussion within the overall structural matrix of British Political System. The purpose is to show that the structure and the dynamics within, actually construct constraints and boundaries which form the context of UK Politics and any radicalism/drastic change is perceived as out of context. This argument will be supported by a brief comparative political analy sis with mainland European model. It will also be supported by referring to the underlying core value structure of UK, which forms the basis of any socio-political construct. The consensus has probably always existed in British Politics, in its different variants, within the confines of practically two-party parliamentary system. This will be demonstrated in the later part of this paper, as for now, as a point of departure of this paper, it is suffice to address the ‘postwar consensus’ and it’s ‘moderately satirical’ Economist typification as Butskellism. It is perhaps an erroneous assertion to call consensus; postwar. It did not spring up suddenly between two political antagonists just after the Second World War. The War time Conservative government was a consensus government. The achievements of the Coalition Government of 1940-45 are termed as the harbinger of postwar-consensus (Addison.1975). Our assertion however is that consensus is the quintessential British Political