My attitude on ATTITUDE

                 What is an ATTITUDE? I have been trying to answer this question since three years. After lots of research, analysis and a small help from Psychology class, here I have the answer.

                Before proceeding to answer this question, it is very much necessary to let ourselves think and realize the already existing answer we have for this question. We cannot overlap two answers. You should either not have an answer or have some answer. If you have an answer you should be able to completely understand it, irrespective of it being a right or wrong answer. If you found a new answer to the same question, you cannot just accept it just the way it is. First, you need to make room for the new answer. As the space is already occupied by an existing answer, you have to wipe out the old one. But you can’t reject an old answer just because you got a better answer. You have to start questioning the previous answer, unearth the flaws and mis-concepts in it which you failed to realize earlier. In other words, you cannot embrace the new answer unless you logically conclude the mistaken identity of the old answer. Unless you do this, you will be merely accepting the new answer, afraid to question your own stand, afraid of not having an answer, afraid of having a wrong answer. This can only make your thinking unreliable and unstable.

                What is not an attitude? Behaviour of a person is not attitude. Most people call it bad attitude when they don’t like the behaviour or others. Their behaviour might be arrogant, discouraging or of any other negative trait. Instead of stating that the person is arrogant we say that the person has a bad attitude. Try asking yourself what is a bad attitude. You will end up explaining the bad behaviour of the person. Behaviour and attitude are not the same.

                Confidence is not attitude. Confidence is the way you behave. Lack of confidence doesn’t make a person possessing wrong attitude. Confidence, outgoing, extrovert, etc.. may mean good attitude to many but still it is not called attitude. All these are the person’s characteristic qualities he developed over his life span or has undergone a crash course to attain the particular behaviour kind. All the soft skill trainings you come across doesn’t teach you attitude. They teach you how to behave, how to react, how to respond.

                The big problem lies here. It is an observable fact that people have an affinity towards the usage of words like “attitude”. They start using it whenever and wherever an opportunity knocks, irrespective of content and meaning. This widespread usage has given “attitude” a wrong representation and discovery of its true meaning has become a great achievement for layman.

                Then what is an attitude? Attitude is neither good nor bad, neither right nor wrong. Attitude is a skill which your experience and thinking teaches you. It is your guardian angel that guides you at every instant of life. It is not a quality which can be judged as good or bad. It is an essential possession of every man. Whatever quality you exhibit, whatever decision you take, whatever way you behave, all have a common source, a genesis for the entire process. It is attitude.                 Attitude is not static. It is ever changing. Its change is based on your new experiences and thoughts. Do not make a mistake here. Old attitude is not substituted with new attitude. Attitude is a self-evolving skill.

                In a crude way, attitude sometimes is called as opinion on some issues. As long as you think in the right direction and add experience to it, your opinion can never be wrong however contrasting it may be with others. Others opinion is based on their thoughts and experiences. The main reason why opinions may not coincide is the difference in experiences experienced by people. For different people, different experiences teach different things. So you cannot say a particular person’s opinion is right or wrong. You can only say so when you notice a flaw in their thinking process.

                How can you understand a person’s attitude? There are two possible ways. One is behaviour. A person’s behaviour towards something-person, idea, issue- tells about his attitude. As said earlier, attitude is the genesis of all the processes that run in your mind. So your behaviour is based on your attitude. Your behaviour is a combined result of your attitude, your mental condition and circumstances. These three aspects need not necessarily complement each other. The dominant feature dominates the behaviour pattern. So sometimes you end up behaving completely against your attitude. So behaviour can tell about a person’s attitude, but it need not always speak the truth. Hence, behaviour is not a reliable source in knowing a person’s attitude.

                Other is direct interaction with the person. There are many ways to know a person’s attitude in this method. You can have a friendly chat and know his/her attitude. You can give a formal questionnaire and ask for answers. There is only a minor problem with this process. What kind of questions do you phrase? Do your questions cause any ambiguity to the reader? Is it possible to misinterpret the questions? Taking care of these issues will help you in forming a reliable set of questions in knowing a person’s attitude.  Your part is almost done. Now all you have to do is to wait for the answers and interpret them. Ideally he/she would give the answers. But there is always the probability of circumstances affecting the credibility of his/her answers. Especially, the mood of the person and the relationship with the person posing the questions will affect the answers. So this method is not flawless.

                To conclude, as long as a person decides not to reveal his attitude, there is no way you can judge his attitude. And he can even mislead you. You cannot prepare a person to judge his attitude. Let the man be free and then his attitude shows up.

                Some people have helped me in my research on this topic, especially Krishna Chaitanya. And I have used some people as my subjects for my research without their consent. A sincere “sorry” and a whole hearted “thankyou” for their cooperation.

P.S: Even though many people know the true meaning of “attitude”, they are still prone to committing the mistake of misusing the word.

“Habits don’t die easily. They have to be brutally murdered”

My ViSioN

My ViSioN

" I " matters

       With regard to man's preferences and priorities in life, many philosophers, altruists and philanthropists state the following:

        Man's priority should always be society, He should live for society. Well being of society should be his highest ideal. Society should always be his preference in conflict between him and society. Man should inculcate the dignity to accept the universal fact that, anything good for society is obviously good for him. People judge man's character on the basis of his contribution to society. Man is considered moral only when he thinks about the good of society and is selfish, if he thinks about himself. Man is a social animal and his greatness is measured on the basis of how much of his life has he dedicated to society. Man should be kind enough to donate his earnings to society and thereby contribute in building a prosperous society. man should continuously and anxiously think of new ideas that would benefit the society. He should not commit the sin of giving preference to his own desires, when desires of his fellow human beings are left unfulfilled. YOUR HAPPINESS LIES IN THE HAPPINESS OF YOUR NEIGHBOUR. After all, it is in society man grew up. It is the society that is responsible for what he is now.

     But are you really born to live for society? If you are continuously and anxiously thinking for the betterment of society, what about yourself? Above stated personalities say that preference should be given to others' needs than your own desires. Then, who takes care of your NEEDS and DESIRES? More importantly, the question is, who decides what your needs are and what your desires are? By what right, does this person or a group of people claim that they have an authority to take a decision regarding your personal emotions?

    How do you define the statement " YOUR HAPPINESS LIES IN THE HAPPINESS OF YOUR NEIGHBOUR". If you think that this statement is a profound truth about life which takes  lifetime for many people to understand, then are you ready to work extrahours so that you earn livelihood for your neighbour too.If your neighbour's happiness is the pre-requisite in PURSUIT OF YOUR HAPPINESS, then start serving your neighbours the way slaves in ancient Greece did. I don't say you both are same. I am not  insulting the slaves. I respect them. I know what it takes to be a slave. You both are entirely different.   They are forced to act against their will, where as, you are doing it willingly because of your unquenchable need ( or is it desire?  who should judge?) for your happiness. For them, no other option is left. For you, no other desire is left, other than your happiness, which you are searching in others ' happiness. But, will society try to keep u happy, in its own pursuit of happiness?

   If society makes man, then I say 

     

         " If society gave birth to great men, then the same society gave birth to criminals and psychopaths"

This is a contradiction. So I rule out the statement that whatever I am today, is because of society.

               So, In whatever direction you travel, whatever path you choose, you end up coming across the same question: 

If I live for society, who lives for me?

              Society can't live for me. If I am jobless, society doesn't feed me. If I love listening to music, society doesn't buy me a music player. So, who takes the responsibility of my happiness, my needs and my desires while I am busy with the needs of society? Knowing answer might be sufficient to answer the question. But not sufficient to question the reason for question. So, most of the time, realising the answer is more important than knowing the answer, which the present situation demands. Answer to the question is " I " .

             Only I can live for myself and I can only live for myself. Whatever I do, wherever I go, in the end only " I " matters to me. What type of contradiction is this, when you can't live for yourself, but you live for others and others, who can't live for themselves, live for you? Who can live my life better than myself? Who can be the right person to judge my thoughts, my needs, my desires and my actions? 

             I may cheat many people saying " i love to help others", but can't cheat myself from the fact that, by helping others, I am just satisfying my emotions. It doesn't make me ALTRUIST, it makes me SELFISH. At the end, I am not an altruist. I am selfish and I am proud of what I am. Only my satisfaction matters and only  " I " matter to me.

             I am living in a society. It just means that I have the responsibility to make sure that my actions do not disturb its peace. It doesn't mean that I should live for society. If satisfying my desires is a SIN, then I am committing a bigger sin by helping people satisfy their desires.

             Whatever I earn is the result of my hard work and my hard work is my private property. It preserves the integrity of my character. I cannot DISRESPECT myself by giving away my private property to those people who doesn't know its value. Whatever I give, people may know its value, but they do not how valuable it is to me. They even fail to realise this fact. Because, according to them, society should always be my priority, but not my private possessions. 

             But, in the end, how I treat myself matters, not how others treat me. How well I respect my " I " shows my DIGNITY. 

            Whatever I am today, is the result of hard work of my only two possessions. My MIND and my BODY. Whatever I do, I do to satisfy these two. I have the responsibility of taking care of these two, as they are the only possessions I have, or as a matter of fact anyone has. Everything else is the outcome of the usage of these two. So, I decide what I want, what I need. I decide my priorities. As a responsible citizen, as long as my possessions are not ill treated, I will not interfere  with the society. I cannot INSULT myself by stating that I am an ALTRUIST  and that my life is dedicated to society. I dedicate my life entirely for myself. For me only "I" matters. I do not want others to live for me and I do not live for others.