My Personal Success

Malcom Forbes, a very successful business man once said “Success follows
doing what you want to do. There is no other way to be successful.” Following Forbes'
advice, I looked within myself to discover what it is that I want to do with my life. I found
that what I desire most is to travel the world, make a difference, and be happy with who
I am until I die - this is my definition of personal success. In order to achieve this I have
come up with a series of personal goals. These goals include going to college, joining
the peace corps, traveling the world, having a job, and keeping healthy relationships.
For many people achieving success starts with college and I feel the same. I plan on
researching a few different colleges, but I pretty much have my heart set on the
University of Michigan. Michigan is a competitive school so in order to get in I must
make sure I have the best grades, advanced classes, several extracurricular activities,
community service, and a high ACT score. Another big issue of college is paying for it
all. I plan on signing up for scholarships, requesting financial aid, and working on
campus. Oddly enough another of my goals was first announced on the steps of the
University of Michigan.

On October 14th, 1960 the soon to be President Kennedy challenged students

from Michigan to make a difference in the world. This challenge would turn into the
Peace Corps, who I plan on joining after I graduate from college. I have always had a
desire to see cultures different than my own and to serve others. I have been blessed to
live such a privileged life where I eat on a regular basis and I can go to school for free. I
cannot help but feel that the reason I am so lucky is because I am meant to help better
the lives of others. Serving my county and the world through the peace core is one of
my greatest aspirations. Signing up for the peace corps helps me to reach my other
goal of travel. Ever since I was a child I loved going on family vacations and I still have
this desire to travel everywhere and do everything. If I ever found a magic lamp the first
wish I would ask of the genie would be for a personal jet that could take me anywhere in
the world. Consequently I hope to go into a career that allows me to travel so easily.

Finding a career that I love is much more important to me than having one that
makes a lot of money or has good benefits. I have learned from my father's example
that enjoying what you do is much more important than money. At this point in my life
I'm not positive of what job I want. I have thought about being an international journalist
or writing articles for National Geographic. I've also considered being a wildlife biologist.
Recently I've begun to think about working for a non-profit organization or starting up my
own. However getting a job is not the only thing in life, creating and keeping strong
relationships also leads to the road of happiness.

Just like any other child raised on Disney movies, I too look forward to the day
when my prince will come. When I am older I hope to fall in love, get married, and have
children. When this all will fit into my plan is still being determined, until then I rely on
the strength of my family and friend relationships to get me through each day.

I imagine that these will become even more important in the future especially if I
travel like I want to. Thank goodness for facebook and other media sources that can
keep us connected over great distances. If the dictionary's definition of success is “the
accomplishment of an aim or purpose”, then my purpose is to live my life, as Forbes
suggests, doing what I want. For me this means having an education, a job, a family,
and making a difference.

One of my favorite quotes is by E.B. White, he said “I arise in the morning torn
between a desire to improve the world and a desire to enjoy the world. This makes it
hard to plan the day.” I would truly be a success, at least in my own eyes, if I could
achieve both of these desires.
 Friendship and the Structure of Trust
By: Mark Alfano

Friendship might seem like a bizarre virtue—or not a virtue at all. In Aristotle’s
early discussion of the virtues in the Nicomachean Ethics, we see courage, temperance,
generosity, magnificence, magnanimity, pride, wit, and justice. These would all seem to
be, in the first instance and primarily, monadic properties of individual agents. To be
courageous is to be disposed to think, feel, desire, deliberate, act, and react in
characteristic ways. Even if no one else is courageous, it would still be possible though
extremely difficult for you to be courageous. Of course, if there are no threats to be
opposed, you may never have a chance to manifest or express your courage.
Furthermore, it would surely be easier to develop courage in the company of others who
either are or strive to be courageous. And it may also be easier to develop or sustain
courage when others think of you as courageous and signal those thoughts to you. But,
one might think, even if none of these enabling facts obtains, it would still be possible,
conceptually speaking, to be courageous. Or consider generosity. To be generous is to
be disposed to think, feel, desire, deliberate, act, and react in characteristic ways. Even
if no one else is generous, it would still be possible though extremely difficult for you to
be generous. Of course, if there were no other people who needed or wanted or would
appreciate what you have, or if you were so down on your luck that you had no
resources to offer, you may never have a chance to manifest or express your
generosity. Furthermore, it would surely be easier to develop generosity in the company
of others who are or strive to be generous (and, for that matter, grateful). And it may
also be easier to develop or sustain generosity when others think of you as generous
and signal those thoughts to you. But, one might think, even if none of these enabling
facts obtains, it would still be possible, conceptually speaking, to be generous.
Friendship appears to be different. It seems to be, in the first instance and primarily, a
dyadic relation between two people. To be a friend is to be disposed to think, feel,
desire, deliberate, act, and react in characteristic ways towards a particular person, who
is likewise disposed to think, feel, desire, deliberate, act, and react in those same
characteristic ways towards you. If no one else is a friend, then it is conceptually
impossible not just difficult for you to be a friend as well. It is not just easier to develop
friendship in the company of others who are doing so as well; it is in fact impossible to
become a friend without there being someone else who also becomes a friend, namely
your friend. In this paper, I describe some of what I take to be the more interesting
features of friendship, then explore the extent to which other virtues can be
reconstructed as sharing those features. I use trustworthiness as my example
throughout, but I think that other virtues such as generosity and gratitude, pride and
respect, and the producer’s and consumer’s sense of humor can also be analyzed with
this model. The aim of the paper is not to demonstrate that all moral virtues are exactly
like friendship in all important respects, but rather to articulate a fruitful model in which
to explore the virtues.

Being a friend isn’t just a matter of your first-order cognitive, affective, evaluative,
and behavioral dispositions; to be a friend means, among other things, to have
particular de re attitudes towards another person(your friend), and for that person to
have congruent de re attitudes towards you. That is, for you to be my friend, you need
to think of me as your friend, to wish me well for my own sake, to wish me well in virtue
of my good character (or, in other types of friendship, in virtue of my contributing to your
utility or pleasure), and so on. Likewise, I need to think of you as my friend, to wish you
well for your own sake, to wish you well in virtue of your good character (or in virtue of
your contributing to my utility or pleasure), and so on. But that is not enough. Not only
must both you and I have these attitudes, but the existence of these attitudes must be
mutual knowledge between us (NE IX:5, 1166b). If I wish you well for your own sake
and in virtue of your good character, and you wish me well for my own sake and in
virtue of my good character, but neither of us knows how the other feels, we are not
friends. Instead, we merely harbor mutual but unrecognized good will towards one
another. To be your friend, I need to know that you wish me well for my own sake and in
virtue of my good character, and you need to know that I wish you well for your own
sake and in virtue of your good character(NE VIII:3, 1156b).

In fact, even that is not enough. We could satisfy this description and yet still not
be friends. If we have these attitudes towards each other, and each finds out through
reliable testimony that the other does as well, it would still seem strange to say that we
are friends. We might never have met each other, yet satisfy these conditions. Friends
have a more intimate connection than this. I also need to know that you know that I wish
you well for your own sake and in virtue of your good character, and you need to know
that I know that you wish me well for my own sake and in virtue of my good character.
It’s arguable that even this is not enough, and that what needs to hold is that we share
common knowledge of our attitudes: I know that you wish me well for my own sake and
in virtue of my good character; and you know that I know that you wish me well for my
own sake and in virtue of my good character; and you know that I know that you know
that I know that you wish me well for my own sake and in virtue of my good character,
and so on. Or, somewhat less strongly, perhaps what’s required is that there be what
Lewis (2002, 56) calls a basis for common knowledge between us, even if only two
levels of mutual knowledge are actually present. I will not press this point here, for even
if all that’s required is two orders of mutual knowledge (I know that you know, andyou
know that I know), my point still holds that friendship is an interesting virtue because it
requires reciprocated de re attitudes and some kind of mutual recognition of the
existence of this reciprocation. Finally, friends typically harbor other, more complicated,
attitudes towards one another, and react with higher-order attitudes to the presence or
absence of lower-order attitudes. Roberts (2013) argues that de re emotional
interactions are constitutive of friendship (p. 141); he explores the ways in which
emotions and emotional feedback loops strengthen and desiccate such relationships as
friendship, enmity, civility, and incivility. For example, consider a sister who generously
and in a spirit of friendship gives her brother her own ticket to a concert that he would
like to attend. He feels the emotion of gratitude for this gift, which he expresses with a
token of thanks. Satisfied that her generosity has hit its mark, she is “gratified by his
gratitude ...And he may in turn be gratified that she is gratified by his gratitude” (p. 137).
Despite the fact that this is a tiny schematic example, it plausibly contains a fourth-order
emotion (he is gratified that she is gratified that he is gratified that she was generous).
Such episodes are, in Roberts’s view, constitutive of friendship and other normative
personal relationships (pp. 140–1). Constructive feedback loops strengthen positive
personal relationships but aggravate negative relationships such as enmity (leading
enemies to hate, despise, or contemn each other all the more); destructive feedback
loops, by contrast, undermine positive relationships (introducing distrust, contempt, or
other negative emotions into extant friendships) but ameliorate negative relationships
(introducing sympathy, respect, or even admiration into extant enmities).In sum, being a
friend is not just causally but constitutively dependent on there being another person
who has the same virtue. It is, second, not just causally but constitutively dependent on
there being another person towards whom you harbor certain de re attitudes, and who
reciprocates them. Third, it is not just casually but constitutively dependent on your
thinking of yourself as someone’s friend. Fourth, it is also not just causally but
constitutively dependent on there being between you and your friend at least two orders
of mutual knowledge of these attitudes. Fifth, it is not just causally but constitutively
dependent on you and your friend having first-, second-, and perhaps even third- and
fourth-order emotions that include the other person in their content. Finally, it is not just
causally but constitutively dependent on you and your friend sometimes knowing (and
perhaps knowing that you know) that you are engaging in joint planning.

One might worry that these arguments press too hard on the relational aspects of
friendship. Surely, one might think, I can be a friendly person even if everyone else is an
asshole and either snubs or betrays my attempts at friendship. There is an important
sense in which, even in such an unlucky social environment, I can still be a friendly
person. This is a fair point, and one which should lead us to distinguish between the
disposition or trait of friendliness or agreeableness or gregariousness, which is arguably
a monadic property of an individual, and the virtue of friendship, which clearly is not.
One test that seems to do a good job of drawing this distinction is to ask whether the
person in question is friendly or a friend. There is a double dissociation between these.
Someone might be friendly but still not have any friends. Conversely, it’s possible for
someone to be dispositionally grumpy or unagreeable but nevertheless to be a friend,
provided one’s grumpiness or unagreeableness doesn’t become so pronounced that it
turns into outright misanthropy and make one unsuitable to be anyone’s friend. A
modicum of grouchiness can even be charming.
 Teenager

Teenager is a middle stage of adolescence where they become, matured

enough, lazy and getting into trouble.

Some people say that being a teenager is a stage that everything changes. In
this stage, their minds become mature to everything that surrounds them. Some of them
can understand situations that bothers their mind when they are still a child. In our
modern world, teenagers are blinded with technology. Teenagers nowadays, can do
their household chores because of mobile phones, laptop, internet and etc. Unlike in the
past generation that teenagers are busy doing their assignments, helping in doing
household chores and studying. And this generation, getting into trouble is easy
because of social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and etc.

Teenagers must be matured in the things and situations that surrounds them.
Like for example in our society about Government Issue because of corruption that
always occurring some of teenagers just complaining their opinions without knowing the
whole story. Another, last May 2016 was the voting of presidents they have their own
opinions about what will happen or will be the result of the election that can affect the
ruling of the country even if they cannot vote. Teenagers believe in some situations
base on what they hear without any proof but in some instances they are more matured
enough to understand things. Like in their family problems, some of them ready to give
up their schooling in able to look for a job that they can be qualified in able to earn
money that can support their family.

Mostly of the teenagers nowadays are becoming lazy due to the technology like
cellphones, internet, laptop and etc. The fact about teenagers now is instead of
researching in the books with their assignments they depend on the internet where in
one click all results will came out. They doesn’t know that all data that can be found on
the internet is get from the books. And speaking of the technology, teenagers nowadays
is fun of watching movies especially about love. That’s why they learn to fall in love and
at the same time they experiences being hurt by somebody.

In teenager’s stage, no one can predict what will happen especially in getting into
trouble and one of the factor of these is the social media. It is the stage where
insecurities and jealousy happens. They are bullied or bullying others because they
can’t be contented on what they have. Perfect example of these is a cold war between
love teams like Jadine and Kathniel. Teenagers that idolizing these famous loveteams
has their own positive and negative side where both fandom defending their own
opinions that causes conflicts.

Some people says that in teenagers life is a critical stage because some of them
cannot be controlled/disciplined by their parents because of what they can be seen on
movies. They had been influenced by the technology that changes their attitude, moods
and emotions that sometimes resulted into becoming a rebel person.
 True Friends

Many people throw the term “friend” around loosely. They think they have friends
at work, friends at school, and friends from the Internet. But is all these people really
friends?

The word “friend” seems to be used today to refer to anyone from long-term to
short-term relationships. However, a true friend is someone who will always be there in
times of need, who will always be the best company, and who will always listen and give
advice.

Without any questions asked, a good friend will always be there in times of need.
No matter how bad a problem is, a true friend will be the person who sits up nights and
take days off work just to sit with a friend. If someone is in trouble with a difficult paper a
friend will help brainstorm to figure out the problem. If someone is sick, a friend will be
the first one at the door with chicken soup and will baby-sit the kids until the sick person
feel better. I hate the feeling of being sick. If someone is stranded across town with a
broken-down car, a friend will drop everything to make a rescue and drive the person
wherever he or she needs to go.
Not everyone has a friend like this, a true friend will always be the first one there,
no matter what. Most of all, a true friend is also someone who will listen and give
reliable advice. Some people will listen to problems and then give the advice that they
think will work best for them, but that advice isn’t necessarily best for their friend. Other
people will listen but then interject personal stories that relate to the problem but don’t
solve it. But a true friend listens to a problem and gives suggestions to help a friend
figure out the best solution for himself or herself. In other words, a true friend knows
how to listen and help a person solve problems. In addition, a friend is someone who is
always great company, because friend shave so much in common with each other.
Imagine working out together, grabbing a sandwich, and then spending the evening just
talking--about life, about good times, about bad times, about classes at school. Right
now my classes are really hard. At the end of the day, friends might rent their favorite
DVD and make some fresh popcorn. Sometimes they even seem tobe on the same
biological clock, getting tired and waking up at the same time. Friends can always be
themselves around each other.

The word “friend” may be misused in the English language, but at least we can
agree on what true friends are. True friends are hard to find. But once you find them,
they will always be there, listen to you and be the best people to spend time with. No
wonder true friends are so rare!
 On Friendship
T. Ravichandran

A friend is a person capable of loving irrespective of whether he is being loved or

not. Friendship can exist between the same sex: man-man, woman-woman, or opposite
sex: man-woman. It transcends age and could subsist between even an old man and a
small boy. Human beings also establish friendships with their pet animals such as cats,
dogs, horses, doves and parrots. Friendship can also be felt in familial relationships
between father and son, mother and daughter, husband and wife, brother and sister,
elder brother and younger brother. Yet, more than friendship, love is the binding force in
familial relationships. In a deeper sense, love is below friendship because it is an
above/below relation, one of hierarchy and condition. It is implied, then, that friendship
is freedom plus equality. It involves choice and volition. The concept of friendship needs
exploration because often a man is known by the company he keeps; knowing the
company helps one to know oneself and develop his personality to the fullest. Each of
our friends mirrors a rejected or acknowledged trait in us. They happen to be our friends
because it is ourselves in different forms, and a unified vision of them constitutes to the
sameness of our identity. Generally, friendship exists for three reasons: a) virtue b)
usefulness c) pleasure. When virtue is the reason, friendship exists for the sake of
friendship; where both like each other and cherish each other for some creditable
values in the other’s personality. You wish to be the friend of that person for the sheer
personality that he/she has. It has a magic in itself. It attracts you. And it is mutual. You
know that you would even die to swear your friendship for that person. But you also
know that the other would make you live than die for him/her. It is somewhat platonic in
concept inasmuch as the other may not be/need not be all that intelligent and good
looking, useful or capable of giving pleasure. A friendship of the second kind is formed
for the utilitarian value of it. How useful so and so is to me? What can I benefit from
him? Can I use his car? Will he use his reputation and influence to fetch me a good job?
Will he lend me money in need? Thus a person may ask and maintains relationship for
practical, professional, and political reasons. I remember the friendship I made with two
others on a train journey from Mumbai to Chennai. It was extremely useful for killing
time during the journey. Further, all of us had to go to the bus-stand to continue our
onward travel. Therefore we took an autorickshaw till the bus-stand and shared the
money. But then, once we boarded our buses to our destinations, we were looking
forward to meet our people at the hometown. That is the quality of this friendship; it is
useful but lasts so long as the need for utility persists. Once we do away with the utility
need the friendship eventually dies. It holds good only for that moment and need.
Friendship of the third kind is formed essentially on account of the pleasure the
relationship is capable of giving. He is a joker. The moment he enters, you forget all
your worries. You cannot but wonder what new joke he has got up in his sleeve to make
you roar into laughter. And he never disappoints you that way. She is cute, intelligent
and charming. The very notion that she is your friend makes you feel proud. That she
walks, talks and takes tea with you is enough. You are on cloud nine. The point rests
here: How good is he/she in giving me pleasure--physically, emotionally, mentally and
materialistically?
Now to the question: Which of the three is good? It appears that type A is good,
but it is not as useful or joyful as the other types. Type B is good, yet it falls short of
longevity and quality. Type C too is good, but how long one enjoys only pleasure in life?
How many jokes can a person take in a day? And does it give the same pleasure as it
gave to him in the beginning? Doesn’t he reach a saturation point, a mental and
emotional exhaustion? Where he would rather prefer to be left alone to himself? Would
prefer to shed a tear inside rather than go on laughing at the follies of the world? In
close observation, it would be revealed that all these type differences are not watertight
compartments. They overlap with each other. A relationship started on the basis of
usefulness may also get elevated to the status of virtue in due course. Similarly a
virtuous friendship also could soon impart usefulness and pleasure. It would be an ideal
package to have all the three together. But you see my friend, how difficult it is to form
relationships? Virtue-based relationships are formed mostly during childhood,
schooldays. Sometimes later, at college days, when we live in a state ofblissful
ignorance, or rather, fool’s paradise. But once one tastes the coldness of reality and
learns to conduct oneself a successful professional, the circumstance demands one to
have friendships on the basis of usefulness/pleasure. Be it sharing a cigarette or going
for a picnic or deciding to invest in the same company shares together. Though I said
earlier that it is capable of developing a virtue out of it in due course, mind you, it is not
a virtue in itself. Virtue-based friendship is fantastic for this reason: it lasts till the end of
this universe! Though it is disheartening to realise that most of the virtue-based
relationships is formed during our young, immature (ironically because we were thinking
at that time that we were the most matured of the lot!), developing stage--the mind then
was remarkably uninhibited and the ears listened without prejudice and the tongues
twisted smoothly to the words that flew out from the bottoms of hearts--it is gladdening
to know that value-based friendships are also formed in a
professional/political/materialistic milieu. Often less in number, it is formed, surprisingly,
in a short span and lasts till eternity! That telepathic, intuitive Richard Bachian
understanding works out here: “You know your friend in a moment, than your
acquaintances in a life time.”So far so good about friends and friendships. . . All of a
sudden, do I sound cynical a bit? Perhaps (my favourite word in defining relationships)
yes! But why? Frederick Neitzsche feels that the right kind of friendship occurs only
when we realise the enemy within and without. Hence when Aristotle said, “O friends,
there are no enemies,” Neitzsche in his very characteristic way retorted by saying, “O
enemies, there are no enemies.” While Aristotle implied that friends are really enemies
in disguise, Neitzsche conjectured to the contrary that enemies are friends in disguise!
He was contemptuous of our tendency to give only to our friends. But not to our
enemies. The reader should not confuse this notion with the Christian doctrine of ‘love
thy neighbours’ or ‘if a person slaps on your cheek, show him the other’ stuff, since for
Neitzsche, “God is dead” (an interesting but irrelevant point here, hence I defer a
meandering discussion). All that Neitzsche wants to convey is this: while one is so
generous in giving to his friends, he must also learn how to give to his enemies. Failing
which, for him, there could be no friendship at all. Taking cues from Nietzsche we
should not only concede the enemy in the friend but also recognize in advance so that
we may not be caught unawares and be saved of increased blood-pressure levels and
doctor bills. Our best friend is endowed with the capability of becoming our worst
enemy. It is always for sure. A stranger can be an enemy but not worst enemy.
Remember Brutus, for instance. We always say that Caesar was so strong that he
would not have died even if millions of daggers were to pierce him but for the one
dagger of betrayal that penetrated his heart and took away his last breath. That others
were interested in the death of Caesar was of no matter to the mighty emperor, but his
bosom friend saw a point in it made him give up all his hope for survival. If my death
would benefit Brutus, so be it, thought Caesar and died of heart-break, not of
hemorrhage, we may categorically conclude. Nevertheless, this does not always
happen in Shakespearean dramas and present Hindi movies, but in reality too. A
person who had this soul-bending/mending experience wisely knows that love is just an
absence of hate as day is just an absence of night. In the words of Jaques Derrida: if
you want a friend, you must wage war on him, and capable of it, capable of having a
‘best enemy.’ To be capable of this friendship, to be able to honour in the friend the
enemy he can become, is a sign of freedom. Freedom itself. Now this is a freedom that
neither tyrants not slaves know.”(1997: 282). One should be capable of respecting the
enemy, of honouring what one does not love. Incapable of such a respect, incapable of
the freedom entailed by that respect, one could never have either friends or enemies as
such. “Only a free and respectful consciousness could ever attain to this as such, this
phenomenal essence of the friend or enemy, as well as of the couple they form (ibid.).”

In conclusion, recognition of enmity even when friendship is alive and kicking can
give a cosmic and comprehensive view of a relationship resulting in its intensified
quality and enhanced exchange of friendly love. But leaving this aspect of friendship in
the dark, will soon render a relationship arbitrary and leaves its partners in a quandary
with rankling fear for continuity/discontinuity. That’s why, when we preserve the fond
memories of our friends in the attics, refrigerators and pickle bottles of our minds and
hearts, let’s open those wicket-gates of our souls in esteem of our enemies too! And,
from now on, we shall vow together and say: Welcome enemies and happy stay friends!
 A Beautiful Woman
Amanda Glendinning

Beauty is an integral part of a woman's life, whether or not she is beautiful. The
thought process, by both the woman and the world, about her appearance and other
instances of beauty, affects how she portrays herself and is viewed. Women are
affected by beauty and the pressures related. Part of this is due to the historical and
national correlation between beauty and femininity. But, I believe, and have discovered
through the class, "Beauty: Chemistry and Culture", that external beauty is not the
defining aspect of a woman's life.

Internal beauty is just as important as external beauty, especially as it radiates

out. Attitude is more important than appearance. At Bryn Mawr especially, even if a
woman is feminine, she is not necessarily beautiful and vice versa. The advertising
industry and media portray the concept of ideal beauty as a woman who is "young,
skinny, with big boobs, white, blonde, tall, no personality, smiling, a.k.a. 'Nazi
Barbie.' This woman is "a narrow-hipped, high-breasted woman with flawless skin."The
media believes that women want "the Cosmo package [which] seems to offer
everything: sexuality, success, independence, and beauty." In America, women are
exploited and demanded to be similar to the ideal.

American women are brought up in a society which emphasizes physical

appearance. For example, fairy tales portray beauty as good and ugliness as evil. Take
"Snow White" for example. Snow White is described as beautiful with red lips, "skin
white as snow", and raven-black hair. Her stepmother, who also portrays herself as
beautiful, asks, "Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who's the fairest of them all?" When the
mirror states that Snow White is, the evil witch turns herself into an ugly hag to reach
Snow White, demonstrating to the audience that she truly is ugly inside, and thus
externally as well. Bruno Bettelheim explains: The story of Snow White warns of the evil
consequences of narcissism for both parent and child. Snow White's narcissism nearly
undoes her as she gives in twice to the disguised queen's enticements to make her look
more beautiful, while the queen is destroyed by her own narcissism.

Snow White and her stepmother both desire to be beautiful. They demonstrate
that external beauty is necessary as it displays internal beauty.

"Beauty and the Beast," on the other hand, tries to demonstrate that a person
can still be beautiful, even when ugly. Despite this, the fact that Belle learns to love
Beast even though he is ugly is nullified when he becomes handsome through the
transformation. From a woman's childhood, physical beauty is emphasized, and people
assume that women want to look like the pages of Cosmopolitan, Vogue, and Vanity
Fair.

Advertising is important in an American's life, influencing social decisions. The

average American spends about two years of his or her life watching television ads,
which create a "toxic cultural environment." This forces people to "sacrifice our health
for corporate profit." The media has a good deal of influence, despite the fact that only
eight percent of an advertisement's message is taken in by the conscious mind. For
example, advertisements are created to influence women's body image. The thinner the
models, the more diets are advertised, and the more eating disorders are created. Jean
Kilbourne stated, "advertisements create a climate where disconnect to our body is
normalized." While I don't believe that is completely true, Kilbourne has a point.
Advertising disconnects people from the dangers, but I believe that it connects people to
the expectations of their bodies.
 A few weeks ago, I was flipping through the May issue of Harper's Bazaar and
opened up to the "Best Dressed: Bazaar Parties in Paris" photographic article. On the
second page, alone in the largest picture of the "society type pictures" was a smiling
blonde girl with dark eye makeup. "Lydia Hearst-Shaw in Emanuel Ungaro." It read. I
couldn't believe it! Lydia and I went to middle and high school together until she
transferred in 10th grade. Lydia Shaw, as we all knew her, and I had been friends who
carpooled and now she was a model who had been featured on the cover of Italian
Vogue. While Lydia is gorgeous physically, the reason I was drawn to her when we
were friends was her personality. She was fun and took the time to see how people
were doing. Her beauty was not just physical, though that helped. Her physical beauty
was common among the girls at my high school, which in turn caused pressure.

Partially because of the social context of beauty, women have varying self-
esteems. One way that women have manifested low self-esteems is through eating
disorders. I went to a socially intense high school, Greens Farms Academy. There were
fifty-two seniors in my graduating class. Out of the twenty-nine girls, I calculate that 93%
had eating disorders. Only two of us, my friend and I, did not. In fact, two of my best
friends would compete over who could throw up faster after a meal and exercise more. I
know it's not pleasant but it was reality where I was from. As a size 8, I was too fat, even
if I was one of the few natural blondes. Jane Fonda once said:

Society says we have to be thin, and while most of us don't have much control
over our lives, we can control our weight, either by starving to death or by eating all we
want and not showing the effects...I love to eat, but I wanted to be wonderfully thin. It
didn't take long for me to become a serious bulimic—binging and purging fifteen to
twenty times a day! ...bulimia was my secret 'vice.' No one was supposed to find out
about it, and because I was supposed to be so strong and perfect, I couldn't admit to
myself that I had weaknesses and a serious disease.

In a place like GFA, anorexia and bulimia are control mechanisms that allow a
woman to have a feeling of success. When parents and peers are pushing a girl to be
smart and look good, eating disorders emerge. Dr. Wooley, a psychologist, stated in a
Glamour study, "Dieting is often a self-cure for depression and other ills. It gives women
a sense of control, of doing something about problems...that may have nothing to do
with their bodies."

I arrived at Bryn Mawr and expected that a high-stress place such as this would
be another breeding ground for eating disorders. I was pleasantly surprised to find that
eating disorders are distinctly less apparent. While there are still women with problems,
including some of my friends, I believe that Mawrtyrs take their mental independence to
a level which includes an independence from classic beauty norms. Despite this, I do
see that Bryn Mawr women compulsively eat, either socially or when stressed. Women
in general do this. Friends and I were joking that it's not the "freshman fifteen", it's the
"thesis thirty." A number of friends gained weight during their senior year by eating as
either a procrastination device or from stress.

When I look at that, it reminds me of being at GFA. My sisters are thirteen and in
seventh grade there. Their friends have begun worrying about what they look like, and
not only dieting, but also taking it to the next level. They are taught from the Westport,
CT society that appearance is socially important. This is a common US theme that is
taken to an extreme at home. "Today, many young girls worry about the contours of
their bodies—especially shape, size, and muscle tone—because they believe that the
body is the ultimate expression of the self." The girls are taught that people judge based
on appearance and that they should live up to that. "The body is a consuming project for
contemporary girls because it provides an important means of self-definition, a way to
visibly announce who you are to the world." I think that women at Bryn Mawr, even
though they still use their bodies, don't allow themselves to be subjected to the
judgments. My friends have said multiple times that they like the break that Bryn Mawr
has allowed them about feeling self-conscious.

At Bryn Mawr, there is a feeling of body acceptance. If one wanted to (and was
crazy enough in the cold), she could go skinny dipping every day of the year. Nudity is
accepted, no matter what size a person is. The beauty of Bryn Mawr allows for bodies
to be appreciated. Where else could women streak at every major school event? It is
different when women see other women naked than when men see women naked.
Even if women see each other as potential lovers, they do not see each other as sexual
objects. My friend made a joke, "By and large, Bryn Mawr girls are bi and large." As
everyone laughed, I realized that people are more comfortable about sexuality and body
image at Bryn Mawr. In class, someone stated that there is "a community here that
wants to subvert the norms." Bryn Mawr women consciously attempt to go against the
"beautiful" found in the outside world.

Body hair removal, or the lack of it, has been a common theme for women
expressing their femininity or as an expression of feminism. 85% to 90% of women have
unwanted facial or body hair. This has stemmed from a long history of women being
taught that hair is bad and that getting rid of it is feminine. Women were not allowed to
display body hair as it was not acceptable or sexual. Some feminists determined that
leaving their hair where it grew was a form of rebellion. Today, especially at Bryn Mawr,
it is more acceptable to make that choice. Some of my friends here don't shave on
principle or because they like how hair feels, or because they get lazy. Other friends still
shave all the time. My friend had not shaved for a while and then at the beginning of this
school year, she began waxing and increased her entire hair removal regimen. She
made a comment regarding this:

I love plucking my eyebrows, not for any change in overall appearance, but I just
find I really fun and rewarding to remove unwanted stuff. Kinda like Biore strips and
flossing and wax hair removal. It's sorta like taking hygiene to the next level—not only
being clean but feeling clean on the surface.

Our conversation had gone from what people were wearing out that night to a
bizarre story that my friend had told regarding the intense pain she felt while plucking
her eyebrows due to the fact that her twin sister was getting her eyebrow pierced at the
same moment. Another friend had turned to the first and was surprised that she would
pluck her eyebrows. My friend's reaction about getting rid of "unwanted stuff" really
emphasized that society teaches what is and is not acceptable.

Is it though a case of nature versus nurture? Are we bred to find certain

appearances beautiful and others ugly? In class, Krystal stated, "Everything we admire
is fate." Does society teach us that or is it in our nature? I believe it's a combination, as
we can seat Bryn Mawr. Megan stated that the "Bryn Mawr look is different from the
standard" which can be true or not depending on a background. It is certainly true for
me, as I have discussed. The Bryn Mawr environment is unique. As we discussed in
class though, there is a common thread of beauty of appearance, which some people
state leads to the Golden Ratio.

As someone who has been very involved with art, I distinctly see the make-up for
this concept. We were taught that the human face is a combination of three shapes: it is
an upside down triangle, within a square, within a circle. We were also taught other
common proportions of people: the middle finger is the width of the hand and also one-
third of the forearm. The face, if divided in thirds, can be from the hairline to the
eyebrow, the eyebrow to the nostril, and the nostril to the chin. The height of the ear is
the height of the nose and width of the mouth is one and a half times the width of the
nose. As each of these ratios becomes closer to the Golden Ratio, the person is
supposed to be more attractive. While we do not know if this is globally true, it has been
found to be commonly true in the United States.

Despite the common conception of beauty and beautiful people, I have found that
at Bryn Mawr, this is not the defining factor in beautiful. There are a multitude of
beautiful women here, and as I have become closer with them, they have become more
beautiful to me. I look through my photographs and see that none of my friends are
ugly, even though they may not be conventionally beautiful. I think that Bryn Mawr's
environment allows for that.

AtAt Bryn Mawr, gorgon women have been described as beautiful before. They may be
absolutely ugly, but they still draw people. Others cannot turn their heads away, usually
due to the fascinating personality emanating from the woman. Likewise, women that
others might find masculine or "butch" are found to be beautiful here, demonstrating the
beauty and femininity do not necessarily correlate at Bryn Mawr.

Historically, women have found that they demonstrate not only their sense of
selves, but also their sense of beauty through clothing. Part of this is that it boosts a
woman's confidence or hides her imperfections. EfratTseëlon wrote, "...dress has a
profound effect on the woman's sense of self-worth and well being. Clothes both confer
a sense of self worth and help creating it." At Bryn Mawr, I believe that women's
façades, while different from the outside world, still affect the way that she presents
herself, and thus her beauty. I find that the most beautiful women at Bryn Mawr have
the strongest personalities. They emit an inner beauty, which is necessary for me to find
anyone beautiful.

Bryn Mawr cultivates that inner beauty. The school was set up as a place for
intellectual and social growth for women. The school prides itself on emphasizing
education relationships between faculty and students, as well as relationships between
women who are mature in their thought processes. Bryn Mawr was not a finishing
school, like a number of other all women's institutions. It did not focus on society and
manners, even though they were taught. M. Carey Thomas stated, "...a woman can be
a woman and a true one without having all her time engrossed by dress and
society." This has been applied to Bryn Mawr.

Part of Bryn Mawr's attitude stems from the fact that there are no males. Women
are encouraged to focus on only other women and themselves. There is no societal
expectation that women will be feminine, beautiful, and focused on men. Bryn Mawr
women are independent thinkers. Scarlett O'Hara states what I see as a common
feeling of Mawrtyrs:

I'm tired of everlastingly being unnatural and never doing anything I want to do.
I'm tired of acting like I don't eat more than a bird and walking when I want to run, and
saying I feel faint after a waltz, when I could dance for two days and never get tired. I'm
tired of saying "how wonderful you are" to fool men who haven't got one-half the sense
I've got, and I'm tired of pretending I don't know anything, so men can tell me things and
feel important while they're doing it.

Mawrtyrs have an opportunity to escape those expectations for four years and
blossom because of it.
 Today, I realize that I have grown with my confidence and my view of myself.
Because of this sense of self, I have made myself more available to friends. It is an
ongoing cycle of learning to find yourself beautiful and thus making friends who make
you feel better about yourself. I use Helen Keller's famous quote to demonstrate Bryn
Mawr's atmosphere. "The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or
even touched. They must be felt from the heart." Bryn Mawr, by subconsciously
encouraging this, demonstrates that women of all shapes and sizes are beautiful.

I realize that beauty, to me, is more of an internal measure than external.

Whether my pupils dilate or not (what eyes do when they see something attractive), I
have found beauty at Bryn Mawr with my friends. Emotionally and mentally attractive,
my friends exude beauty on the outside. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross said, "People are like
stained glass windows—the true beauty can be seen only when there is light from
within. The darker the night, the brighter the windows." After going through a rough
semester, my friends have held strong and helped me. Because of that, they are more
beautiful than any fashion model could be to me, unless of course, she was my friend.
 What Is Real Beauty?

The definition of beauty is elusive. Each individual has a different perspective

and view of beauty. It is either categorized as a phenomenon that comes from inside or
outside a person or object.

The modern idea of beauty usually clings to the concept that it involves the
shape of a person’s physique. Women especially want to be perceived as beautiful.
They might even go to the extent of taking part in an operation for the sole purpose of
looking more attractive.

Someone’s inner beauty can be seen as completely different, and can strongly
contrast with what people view as outer beauty. Although we could justify that outer
beauty is the first aspect people will look at and judge others by, it is never an excuse to
not consider the power of inner beauty. With these two types of beauties in mind, we
can think about which one is the true sense of beauty.

Makeup does not emphasize who we really are. It is a way of hiding ourselves.
Does it not feel heavy to wear makeup, on our bodies and personalities? Makeup is a
way of cloaking ourselves from our true aura, not far off from being a mask. Wearing
makeup is also an interpretation of insecurity. Why do we wear makeup? Is it to hide
wrinkles and skin imperfections? To hide flaws?

Surgery is far worse. People who are not satisfied with what God had blessed
them with spend an extravagant amount of money to be “beautiful.” We have to
consider how special we are. We are unique because we are made from God’s image
and likeness. We are beautiful already. Just as the organization of Oklahoma Women’s
Coalition stated: “All women and girls are beautiful. Say it. Believe it. Be beautiful.
Because you are.”

We will never achieve our true potential in life if we keep on pulling ourselves
down. Do you not think that the desire of a women to transform physically has taken us
too far away from a healthy relationship with our true selves?

We cannot avoid the fact that all of us, men or women, without any exception,
have some sort of infatuation to be attractive. But did you ever wonder what really
pushes us to be like this, to be obsessive about beauty and fame? What do we always
bump into wherever we go, which slowly abducts the minds and lifestyle of our people?
What serves as an “inspiration” for individuals in pertaining their dreams to looking just
like magazine photos of celebrities, to be “perfect”?

It is none other than the media that affects people’s perspective of real beauty. It
is extremely difficult to avoid viewing advertisements of pills and cosmetics for “beauty
enhancements,” as they are present in every form of popular media. The media is
bombarding us with different outlooks of reality and no one seems to be bothered about
it. Models being soaked with makeup just to hide their flaws is a way of being
unrealistic. It is the act of hiding what is real and showing off an unhealthy image of
beauty.

Yet, the media’s act of brainwashing is akin to a test of our contentment of what
our creator had blessed us with. It is a temptation that lengthens our gap from reality.
We do not need to bash media over its head for its discrepancy. The owners of media
companies are doing what they need to do to sustain their needs for living. These
brainwashers are like termites that dirty the minds of people and fill their minds with lust
and desire, tempting us. Remember that life contains many tests, and you will not even
notice that you are facing one. You need to strengthen your faith and endurance, as
well as your self-esteem.

Real beauty is rarely seen by people. Confucius once stated: “Everything has
beauty, but not everyone can see it.” This philosophy explicates that true beauty is in
the eye of the beholder. Look into those narrow dark orbs known as eyes. You will see a
person’s true aura. Through looking deep into their eyes, you can feel the person’s
ambiance and emotion, whether they are optimistic or in a state of melancholy. Life is
easier if we live in harmony with what is real.

I once passed by a blog about real beauty. Rebecca Hillegeist, the blog owner,
concluded that real beauty comes from inside and radiates out into your energy field—
this energy is what creates your reality. She also stated that we should stay happy and
look through obstacles in a bright and positive mindset. Love what you have now. Do
not proactively change your true physical self. Do not emulate others for a better
physique.

Everyone is beautiful. There might be circumstances when people look down on

their own physical structure. It is because they are comparing themselves to others too
much. You always contradistinguish your imperfections when you vie to be someone
else. We are special in our own way. If we really want to think ourselves as beautiful, be
thankful and faithful. We do not have to brag about our beauty, but we can prove to
ourselves that we are valuable.

Our world is full of beauty because we are all made that way. This is life’s great
reality—that reality itself is beauty.
 Freedom: How Free Is Free?

One of the most frequent issues which strikes every democratic country and is still
unresolved is the issue on freedom. Democracy is a kind of government in which people are
said to be free. It is where freedom exists in the form of rights of the people. For example,
people have the right of speech, wherein people can make known their opinions and
preferences regarding the government. Such freedom is an important element for a
government to be called a democratic one. However, it is not always the case. The privileged
few who hold the power and sit in the high ranking positions impose rules and regulations or
use their authoritative power to make things happen, which would, most probably, suppress the
people’s rights and their freedom(Fromm, 1991). However, the main point here is not
democracy but understanding freedom itself.

More than anything else, it would be necessary for a person to grasp the meaning of
something which he or she has but unconscious if he or she still has it until it is lost – freedom.
The word was formed by combining the root word free and the suffix –dom. The word free
originally meant “beloved” or “dear one.” Accordingly, in another definition from the Old
English, free came from the word freo, which meant “exempt from” or “not in bondage” from
which the present definitions of the word freedom was derived. Moreover, the suffix-dom is
combined with different words to form nouns which refer to domain as in kingdom, collection of
persons as in officialdom, rank or station as in earldom, or general conditions as in
freedom(Etymonline.com, 2010). From these, it can be inferred that freedom is a condition or
state of being free from constraints. It may sound as plain as this but a greater complexity is
implied behind the numerous definitions of the word.

One thing that makes it difficult to understand is that freedom is a concept, not a percept
(Landry, 2006). It is not just a mere product of human’s perception with a full understanding of
what it is but it is an idea that evolved from the people’s analysis of their situation. Freedom,
sometimes interchanged with liberty, is often used to refer to independence especially by the
people who were ones colonized or were under control of a powerful individual like the
Philippines. For the less fanciful, freedom means exemption or release from slavery or
imprisonment. It may also mean an exemption from arbitrary, despotic, or autocratic control, for
short, independence as it was mentioned earlier. Accordingly, it is the state of being able to act
or not to act according as we shall choose. For some, it may mean being able to do what he or
she wants but it is a wrong perception (123HelpMe.com, 2010).

Freedom is something more than the things mentioned earlier. In search for its true
essence, different people came up with different philosophies to better understand the meaning
of freedom. The late US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in one of his speeches, proclaimed
the freedom of men or the four different freedoms of humans. First of which is the freedom of
speech and expression. The words themselves denote what kind of freedom this is. It means
people are free to express their opinions and what they have to say. As pointed out earlier, it is
one of the important elements that characterize a democratic country where the United States
of America is an example. In fact all other three are, as well, characteristics of a democratic
country. The second freedom is the freedom of belief. People are given rights to freely choose
their religion of their will. They possess the power to worship the god they chose to have faith
in. The third one is the freedom from want. It means an economic understanding that would
benefit the individual or groups of individual. Freedom from want is some kind of enlightenment
which would free the individual from disadvantages which wanting would bring. The last
freedom pointed out by Roosevelt is the freedom from fear. In other terms, it can be restated
as freedom from the thought or possibility of putting into harm or endangering one’s self. Like
the freedom from want, freedom from fear is interpreted as the understanding of situations
which would free the individuals involved and would get the most benefit. On a larger scale,
freedom from fear can be illustrated by a country’s endeavor to discern things and avoid
harming its neighbouring countries. This idea of Roosevelt was contested by some but it set
the stage of what freedom is(Crowley, 2001).

Furthermore, in the works cited by William Ebenstein (1972), Thomas Hobbes proposed
two liberties that an individual possessed. One of which is positive freedom and the other is
negative freedom. Similar idea was also presented by Isaiah Berlin when he drew out the
distinction between positive freedom and negative freedom. According to him, negative
freedom can be said as freedom from. On the other hand, positive freedom can be translated
as freedom to. An example of the former is freedom from oppression, freedom from
marginalization, freedom from poverty and the like. This means that negative freedom is
liberation or being free from something which may have been undesirable. In contrast, positive
freedom is having the freedom, ability, power, or autonomy to do something he or she wills.
Positive freedom is illustrated in examples like freedom to develop one’s potentials, freedom to
speak, freedom to choose his or her bet for presidency, freedom to live the kind of life he or
she want, etc.

Landry (2006) asserted that freedom is not a rigid physical thing. It is one that is
intangible and is not to be directly sensed. Instead, it is a concept or a mental construction
which cannot be described in exact and absolute terms. However it should be emphasized that
the precious right of freedom can only be possessed by an individual. It is not like a parcel of
land which many people share but it is something that a person has or not. It’s either a person
has freedom or not.

Indeed, there are a lot of definitions that talk about liberty and freedom. All of those can
be summarized as the absence of restraint (123HelpMe.com, 2010). However, other definitions
seem to be different from the common ones. Saint Thomas of Aquinas gave a different
meaning to freedom. He even showed how an individual can be liberated or freed even in the
state of not being free. It seems hard to understand but it’s not. He gave an example of slavery.
During his time, the Medieval time, slavery was still frequent. His philosophy about governance
was theocratic. The sovereign one mandated by God and slaves ought to obey their masters.
Technically, the slaves were not free. They have no rights to do what they want and they were
bound to follow their master’s orders. In this state of being unfree, slaves can be free by doing
their master’s orders for themselves and not for their masters. In this way, the slaves are no
longer obeying their master but their own will, thus they get their freedom (Ebenstein, 1972). In
addition, another definition is from Christian view. Freedom is viewed as liberation from. To
commit sin is to be a slave of sin and to be free is to follow Jesus, who is the Truth.

Freedom is not something that is gained through the efforts of shedding blood and tears
of one’s ancestors, rather, it is something with which every person is born. It comes with life’s
whole package. Jean Jacques Rousseau asserted that the condition of freedom was inherent
to humanity. At the moment an individual is born, he or she already possesses his or her
freedom. Jean-Paul Sartre even claimed that humans are condemned to be free. People
always have choices and this justifies what Sartre said (Landry, 2006).

It should be clear that freedom is not a measurable physical thing, that is, it cannot be
measured by any objective standard. It exists within humans from the point of birth up to the
very moment of his or her death. However, it only exists in different degrees. Freedom is in fact
fundamental to human life, as fundamental as the air one breathes: there is no excitement in its
experience but in its absence, misery comes. John Stuart Mill described freedom that the only
freedom which deserves its name is that or pursuing one own good in his or her own way so
long as he or she does not attempt to derive others their or impede their efforts to obtain it. It
means that freedom is limited and as mentioned, exists only to some degrees. Suarez (2009)
noted that there is no absolute freedom. If there is such, chaos is what’s going to follow.
Rousseau even took fame when he said that man is born free but everywhere he is in chains.
A fish, for example, is free to swim around in any body of water; however the freedom of the
fish is only limited to within the water. It is the same with the human freedom.

The question then is how to secure the greatest possible freedom for all. Man is given
the freedom to act according to his will so long as others rights are not violated. If other’s
freedom has been invaded, then it’s another story. Securing freedom can be done by
restricting the freedom of all by rules that preclude coercion by or of other people. This is
where the government comes in. Freedom depends upon the combination of the individual and
his or her environment (Bay, 1971). Thus, freedom depends on every government under which
a person lives. For short, the concept of freedom is relative to the notion of law.

It can then be concluded that freedom is a state of being, where an individual is the pilot
of himself, where he or she is free to put at stake his own life, time, and properties. His actions
cost his own benefits. In other words, one is bound to accept the consequences of his or her
actions. Equipped with freedom, he or she has the choice and he or she should pay for the
choice he or she made. With freedom comes great responsibility (123HelpMe.com, 2010). This
is one thing to be remembered by an individual who is free. It is important to note that results of
one’s actions do not only affect him or herself but it also affects the people around him or her.

On the other way around, there are still complex things which are to be understood
about freedom. Here is a situation whether or not a person is free. Suppose a man sleeps in
side a room. The door was locked while he was asleep, thus imprisoning him. The moment
before he awakens, the door was opened. The question is if he is free. This particular situation
seems complicated but it can be explained. The man was free to sleep and if he woke while
the door was locked, he was free to move about in the room but he was not free to leave.
Situations like these illustrate the complexity of the idea of freedom (Suarez, 2009).

It was pointed that freedom is the absence of constraint. It is the inherent ability
possessed from birth to do things of a person’s will, however freedom exists only on limited
degree and is relative to the circumstance. It only exists only in cases where the individual
does not invade the freedom of other persons. There is no absolute freedom.
 Concept Paper About Faith

Faith is not about belief. Faith in fact has very little to do with what beliefs you hold,
other than that it allows you to hold them. Faith is a sacred, deep, emotionally involved kind of
trust. Faith is the kind of trust that you enter into with your whole being. Faith is the kind of trust
that, when it has been broken, it hurts deep inside… but faith is the kind of trust that finds a
way to trust again despite the hurt. We are all people of Faith. Faith is a basic aspect of human
nature. We live in a universe that is so awe inspiring, so infinite, so grandly complicated that all
of human knowledge amounts to only a tiny fraction of reality. Indeed, much of human
perception about reality is pure construct… because the whole of infinity cannot be understood
by finite human minds.

The realization of just how little about the universe we actually understand exists in all of
humanity, both consciously and un-consciously. That realization is one understanding of why
humans created religion (but not the only one).

Faith is what allows us to function despite knowing or sensing how little we actually
know about all that surrounds us. This is where beliefs come into the definition of Faith. Faith
does not equate to beliefs… but it is possible to hold faith in some of your beliefs.

We can have faith in (or sacred trust in) beliefs, in principles, in people, in religious
traditions, in community, in systems and institutions, in ourselves, and in the universe as a
whole. This last is sometimes referred to as “Faith in God”, “Faith in Dharma”, or “Faith in
Creation”. As I have found faith in the universe as a whole, that it is not conspiring against me,
not indifferent to me, but rather conspiring on my behalf and that I am a part of it… I have
found something to have faith in… but that is not my faith. My faith is the ability to trust
something from the very core of my being. When we are bound together by trust that touches
the deepest aspects of who we are… we are living in Faith Community.

A Crisis of Faith is not when a belief is questioned, but when we sense that a deep trust
has been broken.

Someone has been Faithful, a Faithful spouse, a Faithful friend, a Faithful person, when
they hold not only the sacred trust they place in others, but the sacred trust others place in
them as one of the most important aspects of their human existence.

A Religious Faith is not a collection of people who share beliefs, but a community of
people who have made the commitment to trust one another to care for each other’s spirits and
souls, and who join together for a Faith filled purpose.

Blind Faith is a trust that is not examined, not understood, and of which requires only
body and soul, neglecting the mind and the spirit.

Pure Faith is the kind of trust that you hold even when your rational mind says you
should not. This is a two edged sword, because at times the ability to hold a pure Faith is a
blessing, at other times it is simply Blind Faith in disguise.
 Sincerity

Sincerity is generally understood to be truth in word and act. One who means what he says is a
sincere person. One who does not mean what he says is not a sincere man, and is perhaps
even a hypocrite. Because of its purity the term ‘sincerity’ has endeared itself to us. We love
sincere people. We also love to be known as sincere people.
As man is constituted, each part of his being – mind, emotions, etc. – is independent
and is not necessarily influenced by the growth of any other part. If we could integrate the
different parts of our personality, every part would then be raised to the level of the central
growth. A person is integrated if his emotions are rational, social and gentlemanly to the same
extent as his mind. His sincerity is partial if it is limited to the mind and external manners.
By ‘sincere’ we understand that the man acts according to his conscience. If he acts
according to the dictates of his conscience, we accept his sincerity. In that case, he is sincere
to himself. In society this is acceptable as sincerity, but this may be wrong. Suppose an
administrator feels that according to his sincere conscience the clerk has to be treated as a
second-class citizen, he may be sincere but the world outside may not accept it. He may be
sincere but his own conscience may be undeveloped. It is not enough to act according to the
conscience; the conscience must also be cultured and noble. Being cultured is a social
concept. Being noble is a moral concept. Both are good in themselves, as sufficient guides to
men in society. But there is a deeper reference, and that is the inner being, the soul. Sincerity
means to act according to the dictates of the inner divine, to obey the Divine Will. Any other
reference like morality, society, conscience etc. is not sufficiently high.
There are also different levels of sincerity according to the different parts of the being.
There is mental sincerity, vital sincerity and the sincerity of the body. Mental sincerity means to
understand and accept in the mind the highest ideals of the inner Divine. The mind has a
personality of its own, its own beliefs, preferences, traditions, habits, etc. A person may want to
dedicate himself to a very high ideal but the mind may not be able to accept. The nerves,
otherwise known as ‘vital’, also have their own personality. The body has an equally powerful
one, perhaps more powerful. Each of them have developed on their own and retain their
individuality.
Of all the levels of sincerity, mental sincerity is the easiest. Let us examine it here. If we
leave aside blatantly insincere people such as liars, clever crooks, etc. and consider only those
who consider themselves to be sincere, and really examine their beliefs, several facets of
sincerity will emerge. One can sincerely believe in a false idea. Many sincere people have a
strong belief even though the belief is not true. This belief stands in the way of their progress.
Some of these may be: 1) my country’s culture is the best in the world; 2) because a person is
my friend, he must be trusted by everyone, etc. Sincerity should also be rational and intelligent
and not foolish. It is not enough to be sincere, you must also be right.
A certain wrong belief about ourselves can have tragic consequences for our growth.
An insincere employee is perhaps able, by his cleverness, to convince his boss that he is
easily the best in the world and indispensable to the institution. Sometimes he comes to
believe himself in his ‘ability’. If he is a sensitive man, capable of further progress in life, this
belief acts like a black cover over his soul and prevents him from any progress. Sometimes
people wrongly believe, in all sincerity, that their spouse is the cause of all their problems. But
the problems they encounter in life, the blocks to their success, are really centered in
themselves. These people lose a golden opportunity for progress. Their false view of
themselves allows them to even commit outrages on the society. It does not matter they fool
others, but it is a pity they fool themselves. We can call them sincerely insincere people. Most
of us have such a streak in one thing or another. Unless and until we come forward to shed this
aspect of sincere insincerity, the inner light will not shine forth.
It is open to everyone to make his sincerity greater and greater everyday. One can start
by being guided by his conscience and becoming conscientious. One bases his sincerity of
right information and socially acceptable intelligence, not sincere foolishness. Horizontally one
can extend the domain of his sincerity to other similar areas of life and existence. Vertically he
can raise the quality of sincerity by extending it to events of greater significance. Sincerity
made perfect at the level of conscience, extended horizontally to cover all our life activities and
vertically to act in important events of our life will be a sincerity of power and value.
 If what is of value to you inwardly is also recognised by the society as valuable in their
eyes, your sincerity reaches a second peak in the mountain chain of human progress.
Morality is a great thing for society. If one raises his own sincerity to fulfil the moral
requirements of honesty, veracity, purity, etc., etc. it will result in another crown for the inner
jewel of sincerity.
Morality is great, conscience is great, society is great. All are good in themselves. In a
spiritual endeavour, they are stepping stones, not the final crown. For the final crown, the inner
Divine is the sole reference. One must be sincere to the inner Divine and try to express it in
speech, emotions and acts.
There is a test for sincerity and its level of attainments. One who has achieved mental
sincerity will not complain about anything. One whose vital sincerity is complete will not know
any sadness of any kind. The man who has achieved sincerity at the physical level will not
meet with failures of any kind in his work.
One who achieves sincerity at the level of the Spirit will be able to evoke it successfully
in others at all three levels, according to the intensity of his own attainment and the purity of the
other receiving human being.