GENEROSITY VS.

FRUGALITY

Frugality is being thrifty, you use your money carefully

Generosity is Self-less

Being a generous person causes us to look beyond our own situation and gives us a heart ready to give more
than expected or required. This isn’t necessarily easy!

Generosity does not mean giving away all the money you have. And, by no means does it mean that you go
into more debt to be “generous”. (Debt is using other people’s money and giving away other people’s money
is not an act of generosity). Rather, being generous is living with an open hand ready and willing to
use your money in the best way possible. (Remember: the more money you have, the more abundantly
you’ll be able to give!)

Generosity leads to Wiser Spending

When we start to be generous with our money, it helps to keep perspective of what really matters. When
you’re able to buy a $5 sandwich for someone who is hungry, you quickly realize the difference between a
need and a want. When we realize what a need vs a want is in our own lives, we tend to make better
decisions about how to spend our money.

Whatever your current financial situation, being generous can help keep your spending in check. After paying
your $40 a month to sponsor a child to ensure he or she receives clean water, healthy food and an education,
those $5 lattes don’t seem quite as important. It can also encourage you to become debt-free faster in order
to be even more generous!

Giving your time is so valuable.

In order to be frugally healthy, we must strive to be generous people. Our generosity should reflect where we
are in our financial journey.

If you don’t have much, give what you can. (Perhaps you can’t give much money, but you could give time.)

If you’re in debt, keep giving (even small amounts) as you fight to pay off the rest.

If you’re saving for retirement, don’t forget to look up long enough to notice other people in this world who
don’t have the privilege to financially take care of their futures.

Take a look at the current expenses in your life. Take a look up at the world around you. What are some ways
you may be able to live more frugally in order that you may bless someone else?

JUSTICE VS MERCY

These two words, although different in meaning and life application, are both words that describe aspects of our
social values and ordered life styles. They appear together in many circumstances, and philosophers make
comparisons and observations based on their qualities.

C.S. Lewis made this comment:

“Mercy detached from justice becomes unmerciful.”

Perhaps justice is the benchmark that allows mercy to be merciful. The difference in the two words is the
conflicting ideology that they may have when in the wrong hands. Justice is simply to be fair. Mercy is to be
kind and forgiving. Winston Churchill said that all great things are just simple things that are expressed in a
single word. He talks of ‘freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, and hope. All qualities of greatness. Justice and
mercy are there together in his list.

What quality then is of more value: justice or mercy? Perhaps the answer lies in this moving quote from Khalil
Gibran, the prophet:

“Do not be merciful, but be just, for mercy is bestowed upon the guilty criminal, while justice is all the innocent
man requires.”8

EQUALITY VS. EQUITY

Equality is the effect of treating each as without difference; each individual is considered without the counting of their
measurable attributes; treated as the same of those with differing attributes

Equity refers to fairness and equality in outcomes, not just in supports and opportunity

Difference Between Equity and Equality

Equity Equality
Equality refers to equal sharing and division, keeping
Equity refers to fairness, justice and impartiality
everyone at the same level
Equity= Fairness and justice Equality= Sameness
Equality is not affected by the need of the people or
Equity is need based approach
society
It justifies things on the basis of quality It justifies things on the basis of quantity
It focuses on need and requirement of an individual. Thus, It gives same thing to all the people, irrespective of their
known as need based approach need
Equity makes sure what is needed and in which quantity to Equality does not look at what is needed for an
an individual individual
Equity is the means/process Equality is the outcome/end result of the process
Equity is subjective. It differs from situation to situation and Equality is measurable. It does not vary and neither
from person to person matter whoever looks at it
It identifies the differences and tries to reduce the gap It is not concerned with the differences or gap between
between the groups two or more groups
Equity is positive discrimination Equality might give rise to negative discrimination
People are treated fairly but differently People are treated equally but may be unfairly
Here, people can get what they need Here, people will only get what everyone else gets
Equity cannot be achieved through equality Equality can be achieved through equity
It looks everyone differently Does not look everyone differently
Proper analysis of the existing situation is needed to practiceNo such as analysis is needed is needed to practice
equity equality
Equity can work even if people do not start from the same Equality can only work if everyone starts from the same
point place
Equality is mostly treating equally irrespective of being
Equity is taking a rationale and logical decision
rationale or not
Example: In a family, giving different quantity of food to all Example: In a family, giving equal quantity of food to
the family member as per their age, level of physical activity all the family members irrespective of their requirement
and dietary requirement of each of them is equity and need is equality
Example: Same classes for all the students OR extra
Example: Providing extra classes to the weak students
classes for all the students irrespective of their grades
Example: When distributing a pair of shoes to the
Example: When distributing a pair of shoes to the football
football players, giving a pair of shoes to all the players
players, giving a right pair of shoes as per their feet size
without any concern to their feet size
HONESTY VS KINDNESS

Kindness without honesty is not kindness

The first one is, perhaps, the easier to explain. If we are keen to be good for the people in our lives, and if we
strive not to harm anybody, we may find ourselves sacrificing honesty for kindness. We pick up on what people
around us seem to want from us and try to provide that for them, whether or not it fits with us.

So, for example, we might take on more work than we can comfortably manage in order to help others, claiming
that we’re fine. We might say that we feel more for somebody than we actually do in order to make them feel
good. In a conflict we might lie about what we find difficult about somebody in order to save them pain.

These are all examples of kindness without honesty, and they all frequently backfire.

Working too hard without taking time to look after ourselves often results in us working less well and/or
eventually having to stop suddenly because we simply can’t keep it up. Such a situation is usually worse for the
people around us than if we had been honest about the load we could reasonably commit to in the first place, or
if we had said as soon as it was becoming difficult.

Similarly if we offer too much to people in our lives and then don’t follow through on that, they are left
confused and hurt. If we keep trying to give what we have offered (in terms of time, emotion, or commitment)
even when we don’t really have it, people generally pick up on this, or we end up so resentful that we pull away
from them completely.

Finally, if we are never honest about our experience of other people because we want to save their feelings, we
prevent them from learning things that may help them in the long term. Or perhaps we ensure that – when
somebody does tell them – it is in a less supportive and helpful way which may be too painful for them to be
able to hear.

So aiming to be kind rather than honest often ends up being unkind. Real kindness requires us to be honest with
both ourselves and others, even if that is painful and hard.
Honesty without kindness is not honesty

This one is a little more difficult to explain and I am still working it through it myself. I think that if we are
honest with somebody without thinking compassionately about that person than we are not being fully honest
with ourselves, or with them.

So, for example, we might honestly tell somebody who we are struggling with that they are stupid, or lazy, or
annoying. But it is not really honesty if we only see part of the picture and fix that as the truth. Full honesty
involves seeing the way the person is being, but also having the imagination to understand the reasons why that
might be the case. It also involves honestly looking at our own behaviour and how what has happened emerges
from the exchange between us rather than being a matter of isolated individuals who could have internal
characteristics such as stupidity, laziness, or annoyingness. Finally, full honesty requires us to see the whole
person, rather than only the part of them that we are currently focusing on.

Bringing honesty together with kindness helps us to do all these things. Kindness encourages us to ask ‘what
might be going on for this person that they are behaving like this?’, starting from the assumption that it makes
sense rather than seeing them just from the self-centred point of view of our own desires and how they are
blocking these. Kindness to ourselves enables us to look honestly at what we bring to the situation, without
being overwhelmed by guilt and shame when we realise that we are also being imperfect people and
contributing to conflict, confusion and pain. Finally, kindness opens us up to other aspects of the person –
particularly the ones that are impressive – when our attention is in danger of being fixed on ‘negative aspects’.
It allows us to see that what we are finding difficult may well be inextricably connected to things that we find
valuable about this person (stubborness and being committed, for example, or flakiness and being easygoing).

Honesty plus kindness helps us to see more clearly – indeed honestly – the vulnerability which we all share
which underlies much of our behaviour. Then, instead of moments of conflict making us feel disconnected,
isolated and alienated, they actually have the potential to connect us more fundamentally, as we recognise the
familiar fears and dreads, hopes and desires, that drives the very behaviours that we are finding so difficult. But
we need at least a little kindness to cut through the sense that we are up against a bad, blameworthy,
inexplicable individual who is just getting in our way.

Honesty, without the kind recognition that we are all suffering and defending ourselves against suffering, is not
really honesty.

Kindness is being friendly, generous and considerate, according to Google. That last one is the most important-
thinking about how other people feel when you interact with them and acting in such a way that makes their
experience positive. Then everyone gets a fuzzy feeling and you can spend more time with them. It’s an
idealistic trait, but all the best things come in small packages (that’s what my Mum told me when people called
me Bridget the Midget, anyway) . It’s natural that people can't be kind and feel fuzzy all the time.

Sometimes we’re too busy - cramming for our degrees, in a bad mood or getting on with reality - to make the
time to stop and think of others. For example, when I come downstairs to make myself a sandwich in a rush and
realise there are no clean knives, I am more likely to clean a dirty knife (or use a spoon if I’m feeling trashy)
and make my sandwich, rather than wash up so the next housemate doesn’t come downstairs to the same
problem, because I don’t want to be late. I think this comes down to our survival-of-the-fittest instinct- which
causes us to think of ourselves before others. It is more nature than inherent nastiness so don’t feel bad. But if
you’re reading this to try and be more kind, acknowledge that it’s nice to be nice.
Honesty, however, is about how truthful what you say is. It is a desirable trait because it makes you seem
sincere and dependable. People will want to spend time with you if they know they can count on you. Already
it’s an easier trait to adopt because you don’t have to do anything, just be less picky about what you reveal. It’s
also easier because it requires more effort to be deceitful than to be honest. But because of people’s sensitivity
and reluctance to admit the truth, I think the trick with honesty is to consciously deploy it for kind intention,
then you get the best of both worlds.

HAPPINESS VS JOY

Joy and happiness are wonderful feelings to experience, but are very different. Joy is more consistent and is cultivated
internally. It comes when you make peace with who you are, why you are and how you are, whereas happiness tends to
be externally triggered and is based on other people, things, places, thoughts and events.

Differences in Timeframe

Happiness may be momentary and may not last for a long time. This is because happiness is caused by reasons
that may not influence long term contentment. Joy, on the other hand is more related to the inner self and may
last for a longer period of time. When one feels happy, then he's happy for sometime over that subject, but when
one is overjoyed by something then that feeling lasts to content him for sometime. An example to clarify this
can be: A person eats a good meal at a restaurant and likes it, he is happy about it. But he will forget about it
later.
But when one makes that meal themselves for the first time and likes it, then it is joyous. This joyful feeling
will be remembered by that person for a long time.

Emotion

Joy warms a person's heart while happiness merely pleases. This is also because of the
difference in the reasons behind the two feelings. Happiness brings pleasure but Joy
brings true contentment to one's heart.
FORTITUDE VS PRUDENCE

1. Prudence(noun)

the quality or state of being prudent; wisdom in the way of caution and provision; discretion;
carefulness; hence, also, economy; frugality

Prudence is the ability to govern and discipline oneself by the use of reason. It is classically considered to be a virtue, and
in particular one of the four Cardinal virtues. The word comes from Old French prudence, from Latin prudentia. It is
often associated with wisdom, insight, and knowledge. In this case, the virtue is the ability to judge between virtuous
and vicious actions, not only in a general sense, but with regard to appropriate actions at a given time and place.
Although prudence itself does not perform any actions, and is concerned solely with knowledge, all virtues had to be
regulated by it. Distinguishing when acts are courageous, as opposed to reckless or cowardly, for instance, is an act of
prudence, and for this reason it is classified as a cardinal virtue. Although prudence would be applied to any such
judgment, the more difficult tasks, which distinguish a person as prudent, are those in which various goods have to be
weighed against each other, as when a person is determining what would be best to give charitable donations, or how to
punish a child so as to prevent repeating an offense.

Fortitude

-mental and emotional strength in facing difficulty, adversity, danger, or temptation courageously:
-Fortitude meaning courage or bravery is the ability and willingness to confront fear, pain, danger, uncertainty, or
intimidation.

FAITHFULNESS VS LOYALTY

Main Difference

The main difference between the words loyal and faithful is mainly of the intensity and the attributes that carry
along with the two terms. The term loyal refers to the affiliation and allegiance towards someone or something
i.e. people, organization, sect, country, etc. on the basis of returned benefit and assistance. Whereas the term
faithful moreover focuses upon the self-devotion and givenness of everything to anyone or towards anything
without considering anything in return.

Loyal vs. Faithful

Loyal is a term used for a person who is sincere to a group of people, an organization, a cause, a sect, or even a
nation on the basis of relationship in between. The loyal term indicates the adherence towards a particular party
or side on the basis of long-term affiliation and due to mutually exclusive benefits, both parties get from each
other. A person be said loyal to his country as the country gave him his identity, place to work and live, etc.
Similarly, a person serving a company for a while in return of monetary benefits and various other profitable
deeds is termed as loyal to that company. On the other hand, the term faithful possesses way more deep and
intense meaning of sincerity, devotion, and dependents. Loyalty is the start which could turn into faithfulness. A
faithful person is the one who strictly obeys all the vows and promises he or she pledged towards someone
which is usually the relationships. Faithfulness depicts the unconditional support and believes in some cause
without any ambiguities, that entails the adherence towards the religions as well. A faithful person keeps his
sincerity pledged despite all odds, no matter whether the other person or party is right or wrong, faithfulness
entails firm determination and believe above everything.

Loyal indicates a person’s affirmation and allegiance towards a group of people, a country, a company etc. on the basis
of long-term affiliation, relation and sometimes rewards.

Faithful points towards the adhering sincerity of someone for a particular relation, faith, etc. A faithful person is strongly
committed to his vows and promises and never abide by the rules set no matter what.

What is Loyal?

Loyal is the English language term that indicates a person’s affirmation and allegiance towards a group of
people, a country, a company, etc. on the basis of long-term affiliation, relation and sometimes rewards. The
word Loyal was derived in 1400 from Old French words “loialte” and “leaute”, which means honesty and
legitimacy. The term Loyal is used for a person’s affiliation and allegiance with the friends, nation, company,
relationships, etc. it usually falls in the terms of immense support towards a group, sect, race, cause, country,
etc. The word often abides within respond benefits direct or indirect in a variety of different ways depending on
the situations. The word loyal is applicable when demonstrating someone’s support, stand, allegiance,
affiliation, etc. with other people, a particular group, a company, government, nation, etc.

Examples

 A person is loyal to his or her nation as per the given identity and homeland by the nation.
 A person is loyal towards the company he or she works for in exchange for monetarily and social benefits.

What is Faithful?
Faithful is a term in the English language that points towards the adhering sincerity of someone for a particular
relation, faith, etc. A faithful person is strongly committed to his vows and promises and never abide by the
rules set no matter what. The word Faithful was derived in 1300 from the Middle English word “fiethful” which
meant devotion and dependability. The word faithful is applicable when depicting the long-term affiliation,
devotion, dependability, true-heartedness, immense level support to others without any consent and response,
like faithfulness towards family, loved ones etc. The term Faithful, on the other hand, is used for a person’s
solid, constant, long term devotion to a particular duty or obligation or considered compulsion. Although
faithful can be used a synonym to loyal but one the same time it differs from loyal on the basis of intensity and
purity it carries in its overall meaning. Faithfulness depicts the unconditional support without knowing right or
wrong and good or bad. Faithfulness does not involve any benefit or reward as like of loyal.

Examples

 A person is faithful towards his relationships i.e. spouse, parents, children, etc. without any consent or reward.
 A person is faithful as he possesses a firm believer in a religion neglecting all the odds, keeps all the vows and
promises considering it above the barriers or right and wrong.

Key Differences

1. Loyal is the term referring to the affiliation of a person with a group of people, organization or a nation
in terms of mutual benefits while Faithfulness is the intensive adherence towards the relationships and
religious norms without any consensus.
2. Loyalty is on the lighter side of affiliation and Faithfulness is deep and intense devotion.
3. Loyalty is in exchange for various benefits, on the other hand, Faithfulness is massive support without
any wish of getting something in return.
4. Loyalty is sincerity while Faithfulness is the firm believes.

RELIGION VS SPIRITUALITY

These are some of the main differences between religion and spirituality.

1. Experience vs. Belief. Religion usually entails adhering to a certain dogma or belief system. Spirituality
places little importance on intellectual beliefs but is concerned with growing into and experiencing the Divine
consciousness.

2. Fear vs. Love. Quite often religion takes the approach of fearing God. Religion is often concerned with sin,
guilt and a concept of a God who punishes. The spiritual approach to God is through the path of love. This is a
love where there is no judgement – only acceptance. Spirituality feels so-called sins are just ignorance based on
a false belief of who we are.

3. Where is God? Often religion talks of God as being high in the heavens. At times God can seem far from the
reach of aspiring humanity. Spirituality shows us that God is omniscient and omnipresent and can be felt as a
living presence in our own heart. Spirituality says there is no separation between the Creator and His Creation.

4. One True Religion vs. Universality. Many followers of religion feel that only their path can lead to
salvation. They have tremendous faith in their own religion, but at the same time, they feel other religions are
wrong. Therefore, they can feel a necessity to convert others to their faith.

“All fanaticism is false, because it is a contradiction of the very nature of God and of Truth. Truth cannot be
shut up in a single book, Bible or Veda or Koran, or in a single religion.”
– Sri Aurobindo

Spirituality feels that all faiths are valid; like the analogy of many paths leading to the same goal. Spirituality
embraces all the world religions, but at the same time, is not constrained by any religious dogmas or forms.

“We believe not only in universal toleration, but we accept all religions as true. As different streams having
different sources all mingle their waters in the sea, so different tendencies, various though they appear, crooked
or straight, all lead to God.”

– Swami Vivekananda – from Speech at World Parliament of Religions (1893)

Outer Worship vs Inner Worship. Religion places more emphasis on outer forms and outer rituals.
Spirituality is less concerned with outer rituals. Spirituality says that what is important is a seeker’s inner
attitude. Through practising spirituality we seek to develop an inner shrine in our own heart.

One True Religion vs Universality. Many followers of religion feel that only their path can lead to salvation.
They have tremendous faith in their own religion, but at the same time, they feel other religions are wrong.
Therefore, they can feel a necessity to convert others to their faith.

Religion and spirituality do conjure up differences, but at the same time, they are just terms and words.
Spirituality and religion can be interchangeable. The boundary between religion and spirituality is fluid. Rather
than a debate between religion and spirituality, we could think of the difference between human religion and
divine religion.

Whether religion is good or bad, really depends on how it is practised and lived.

Through following their religion, great saints have attained the fruits and realisations of a mystical approach to
God. This includes Christian mystics such as St Teresa of Avila, St Francis of Assisi, and Sufi saints like Rumi,
Hafiz and Attar. Each religion has produced spiritual seekers of the highest order.

CREATIVITY VS ORIGINALITY

ons.

Originality: 1) the quality or state of being original (the source or cause from which something arises; that from
which a copy is made); 2) freshness of aspect, design, or style; 3) the power of independent thought or
imagination.

Creativity: 1) the quality of being creative(marked by the ability or power to create); 2) the ability to create(to
bring into existence; to produce or bring about by a course of action or behaviour)

Both definitions belie a relatively similar notion; churning out that which is new and different. Despite
colloquial usage tying these words together, they’ve always seemed to be functionally differentiated to me. The
very root of the word originality is origin, which caries with it the context of primacy, of being first. Creativity
has no such stigma; the usage of the root word ‘create’ as a synonym for ‘producing’ or ‘making’ lends an
additional layer to it as well, such that creativity does not imply an order of occurrence. An artistic re-
interpretation of a famous painting is likely quite creative. What’s more, it is probably the first time that that
specific combination of design elements has come together. In the end though, it is still a re-interpretation, and
while it may be ingenious, it isn’t the first true look at the underlying material.
And that, I think is the difference between originality and creativity. Originality should be treated as the first
instance of an interpretation. It is a subset of creativity, being the most fundamental building block. All
originality is creativity, but not all creativity is originality.

But then, what about two individuals who come to the same conclusion at different times? Are they to be
treated the same? I’d choose to recognize both individuals as having original ideas, though I would clarify them
as first or second order. If we take originality as meaning the first, we can flesh out the definition as being
something without direct inspiration. First-order originality can only be assigned once; to the absolute first
individual/group to spawn the idea (or to make it visible, as we have yet to mass produce technology capable of
reading minds.) Second-order originality is attributed to anyone who devises the same notion, without direct
prompting (i.e. encountering the first-order idea) but that comes after the first-order idea. Consider a math
prodigy who unintentionally re-discovers theorems long-ago codified by great mathematicians; his creativity is
unquestionable and he merits the term originality in that, had he existed before many of the greats, it is
reasonable to assume he’d have produced the same material and thus have been ‘first’. But it is important to
distinguish this individual from Fermat, Caley, Newton and the other greats who did come first; in this sense,
being born in ages gone-by seems advantageous. (There is a not-insignificant turmoil within me at this further
distinction. I vehemently want to brand all non-first creativity as that and that alone. Unfortunately, that would
unfairly minimize the exceptional work of those who ‘re’-produce the work of others unwittingly. While an
asterisk and a link to the first-order original is always deserved, to ignore the potential for first-order originality
simply because it’s occurrence was temporally inconvenient for the author is a slight on creativity.

Now, I am fully aware that this is a nit-picky look at an esoteric distinction, but I believe that these definitions
enrich the words by adding layers of precision and meaning. Granted, the information density plays a very
limited role in the speed at which information is conveyed between people, meaning these distinctions aren’t
necessarily practical. (Unfortunately) I find a significant appeal in the elegance that distinctions like these
provide. What’s more, this difference heavily informs my opinions on education reform, which I will get into
soon.

HEALTH VS WISDOM

As defined by World Health Organization (WHO), it is a "State of complete physical, mental, and social
well being, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity." Health is a dynamic condition resulting
from a body's constant adjustment and adaptation in response to stresses and changes in the
environment for maintaining an inner equilibrium called homeostasis.

What Is Wisdom?

Wisdom is one of those qualities that is difficult to define—because it encompasses so much—but which people
generally recognize when they encounter it. And it is encountered most obviously in the realm of decision-
making. Psychologists tend to agree that wisdom involves an integration of knowledge, experience, and deep
understanding that incorporates tolerance for the uncertainties of life as well as its ups and downs. There's an
awareness of how things play out over time, and it confers a sense of balance. It can be acquired only through
experience, but by itself, experience does not automatically confer wisdom. Only now are researchers beginning
to look into the social, emotional, and cognitive processes that transmute experience into wisdom. Wise people
generally share an optimism that life's problems can be solved and experience a certain amount of calm in
facing difficult decisions. Intelligence—if only anyone could figure out exactly what it is—may be necessary
for wisdom, but it definitely isn't sufficient; an ability to see the big picture, a sense of proportion, and
considerable introspection also contribute to its development.

INTEGRITY VS RESPECT
As nouns the difference between respect and integrity
is that respect is (uncountable) an attitude of consideration or high while integrity is steadfast adherence to a strict
moral or ethical code.

Respect
First published Wed Sep 10, 2003; substantive revision Sun Feb 18, 2018

Respect has great importance in everyday life. As children we are taught (one hopes) to respect our parents,
teachers, and elders, school rules and traffic laws, family and cultural traditions, other people's feelings and
rights, our country's flag and leaders, the truth and people's differing opinions. And we come to value respect
for such things; when we're older, we may shake our heads (or fists) at people who seem not to have learned to
respect them. We develop great respect for people we consider exemplary and lose respect for those we
discover to be clay-footed, and so we may try to respect only those who are truly worthy of our respect. We
may also come to believe that, at some level, all people are worthy of respect. We may learn that jobs and
relationships become unbearable if we receive no respect in them; in certain social milieus we may learn the
price of disrespect if we violate the street law: “Diss me, and you die.” Calls to respect this or that are
increasingly part of public life: environmentalists exhort us to respect nature, foes of abortion and capital
punishment insist on respect for human life, members of racial and ethnic minorities and those discriminated
against because of their gender, sexual orientation, age, religious beliefs, or economic status demand respect
both as social and moral equals and for their cultural differences. And it is widely acknowledged that public
debates about such demands should take place under terms of mutual respect. We may learn both that our lives
together go better when we respect the things that deserve to be respected and that we should respect some
things independently of considerations of how our lives would go.

We may also learn that how our lives go depends every bit as much on whether we respect ourselves. The value
of self-respect may be something we can take for granted, or we may discover how very important it is when
our self-respect is threatened, or we lose it and have to work to regain it, or we have to struggle to develop or
maintain it in a hostile environment. Some people find that finally being able to respect themselves is what
matters most about getting off welfare, kicking a disgusting habit, or defending something they value; others,
sadly, discover that life is no longer worth living if self-respect is irretrievably lost. It is part of everyday
wisdom that respect and self-respect are deeply connected, that it is difficult if not impossible both to respect
others if we don't respect ourselves and to respect ourselves if others don't respect us. It is increasingly part of
political wisdom both that unjust social institutions can devastatingly damage self-respect and that robust and
resilient self-respect can be a potent force in struggles against injustice.

The ubiquity and significance of respect and self-respect in everyday life largely explains why philosophers,
particularly in moral and political philosophy, have been interested in these two concepts. They turn up in a
multiplicity of philosophical contexts, including discussions of justice and equality, injustice and oppression,
autonomy and agency, moral and political rights and duties, moral motivation and moral development, cultural
diversity and toleration, punishment and political violence. The concepts are also invoked in bioethics,
environmental ethics, business ethics, workplace ethics, and a host of other applied ethics contexts. Although a
wide variety of things are said to deserve respect, contemporary philosophical interest in respect has
overwhelmingly been focused on respect for persons, the idea that all persons should be treated with respect
simply because they are persons. Respect for persons is a central concept in many ethical theories; some
theories treat it as the very essence of morality and the foundation of all other moral duties and obligations. This
focus owes much to the 18th century German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, who argued that all and only persons
(i.e., rational autonomous agents) and the moral law they autonomously legislate are appropriate objects of the
morally most significant attitude of respect. Although honor, esteem, and prudential regard played important
roles in moral and political theories before him, Kant was the first major Western philosopher to put respect for
persons, including oneself as a person, at the very center of moral theory, and his insistence that persons are
ends in themselves with an absolute dignity who must always be respected has become a core ideal of modern
humanism and political liberalism. In recent years many people have argued that moral respect ought also to be
extended to things other than persons, such as nonhuman living things and the natural environment.

Despite the widespread acknowledgment of the importance of respect and self-respect in moral and political life
and theory, there is no settled agreement in either everyday thinking or philosophical discussion about such
issues as how to understand the concepts, what the appropriate objects of respect are, what is involved in
respecting various objects, what the conditions are for self-respect, and what the scope is of any moral
requirements regarding respect and self-respect. This entry will survey these and related issues.

Integrity is the practice of being honest and showing a consistent and uncompromising adherence to strong moral and
ethical principles and values.[1][2][3] In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's
actions. Integrity can stand in opposition to hypocrisy,[4] in that judging with the standards of integrity involves regarding
internal consistency as a virtue, and suggests that parties holding within themselves apparently conflicting values should
account for the discrepancy or alter their beliefs. The word integrity evolved from the Latin adjective integer, meaning
whole or complete.[1] In this context, integrity is the inner sense of "wholeness" deriving from qualities such as honesty
and consistency of character. As such, one may judge that others "have integrity" to the extent that they act according
to the values, beliefs and principles they claim to hold

FAME VS REPUTATION
Reputation is what other people or the general public think of you wether it’s good or bad.
Fame is that you are known or recognized by many people, and can be for good or bad reasons.

HUMILITY VS CONFIDENCE
True humility is to recognize your value and others value while looking up. It is to see there is far greater than ourself
into who we can become, who others can become, and how much more we can do and be.

To be humble is to serve others and be for their good as well as your own

To be humble is to have a realistic appreciation of your great strengths, but also of your weaknesses

What Is Confidence?

Confidence can be described as a belief in oneself and the ability to succeed. Being confident is to possess a
realistic sense of one’s capacity and feel secure in that knowledge.

Striking a healthy balance between too much and too little confidence can be challenging. Too much confidence
can come off as cocky and arrogant. Overestimating one’s abilities might also lead to pitfalls, such as failing to
complete projects on time.

But too little confidence can prevent people from taking risks and seizing opportunities—in school, at work, or
in their social life.

Projecting just enough confidence helps people gain credibility, make a strong first impression, deal with
pressure, and tackle personal and professional challenges.

The best way to ensure a balanced sense of confidence is to assess oneself realistically. Confidence that’s based
firmly on what is known may not only be a better guide than exaggerated certainty; studies suggest it’s also
more likely to earn the faith of others.
GOODNESS OR GREATNESS

ON GOODNESS AND GREATNESS

GREATNESS AND GOODNESS ARE NOT MEANS, BUT ENDS. GOODNESS IS MORE
IMPORTANT THAN GREATNESS. IF GREATNESS IS THE STRUCTURE AND BUILDING THEN
GOODNESS IS THE FOUNDATION.

Before being anything one first of all must be a good human being. Because everything even greatness
will flow from that. If one is not a good human being, then greatness is fake / pseudo.There is nothing like
goodness in the world. Great person does not imply that he or she is good too. A great person if at all he
or she is, primarily must be good first. Good people are down to earth, whereas great people may not be
so. At the same time I do not rule out the possibility that great people are not good. Goodness is deep-
rooted and embedded in the earth whereas greatness is in the air. Good people and leaders are more
stable and humanitarian. In fact greatness is goodness plus some more qualities and traits.

- Goodness: The quality of compromising your highest inner guidance, especially when it conflicts with the prevailing
moral standards or societal norms.

- Greatness: The quality of acting on your highest inner guidance, even when it conflicts with the prevailing moral
standards or societal norms.

Approach To Resolving Conflict With Self

- Goodness: Compromising. The quality of compromising one's higher values in the face of fear.

- Greatness: Standing. The quality of standing for one's higher values in the face of fear.

Guidance Orientation

- Goodness: External. Value the esteem of others OVER esteem of self.

- Greatness: Internal. Value the esteem of self OVER esteem of others.

MATH OR SCIENCE

My friend ,SCIENCE is something which helps you to know this world better . it has got such supreme power
which will make you aware not only about the things/changes/reactions happening in your body but also about
the things/changes/reactions happening in this universe .

MATH , its a subject which is a bit boring for those who love literature . But its highly important for analytical
and practical thinking . It would also be a career deciding factor if you want to become something related to
science .

It would be a big mistake to make a choice between these two revolutionary subjects . So the best option is to
opt for both .

Contemporary society lumps math and science as one thing, but they are not the same. Reading a passage in
Simon Blackburn’s Think, I saw some insight about this, which I will paraphrase and expand on here.

Math is based on abstractions, and relationships between abstractions. Abstractions in math are generally
absolute truths, meaning it is impossible that the abstraction is not true. Very few things that are accepted in
mathematics get retracted later. New abstractions can be formed from existing ones, usually from those that are
absolute truths, and these new abstractions can be formed by simply sitting at a desk and thinking about it long
enough: there’s an adage, a mathematician is a machine that turns coffee into theorems.

The basis of science is empiricism. One observes something about the natural world, and tries to create their
own model of how it works or occurs—they try to turn it into math. When the conversion is successful, we can
use the new math to create technology, to invent and engineer new things.

Verification of a model is usually not absolute, and through repetition and logic something is “believed” to be
true when as far as anyone can tell there’s no evidence that it is false. The only way to verify something in
science is to repeat it: you’re not going to get the next scientific breakthrough by only sitting at your desk.
Because science is often not based on absolute truths, many things in science that are once accepted get
retracted from days to centuries layer.

This philosophical difference I think explains how there can exist child prodigies, and their distribution among
math and the sciences… There are many children who are math prodigies, fewer who are prodigies of physics,
and almost none of chemistry. Child prodigies in biology and the life sciences are completely unheard of.