|
|
Personal Growth And Self Improvement
Arnold Schwarzenegger - History Changed by Burning Desire!As I write this in June, 2007, "Conan the Barbarian"...er...Mr. Governor of California, erstwhile "The Terminator, " is turning 60 in one month. I've never really looked into Arnold Schwarzenegger's history before, but having done so recently, I find it fascinating. Not so much because of THE EVENTS that have happened to Arnold Schwarzenegger over the years, as much as THE WAY it happened. You see, in my mind, Arnold Schwarzenegger, the kid from a small town in Austria, exemplifies what the term "American Dream" once meant, and still can mean. He also demonstrates in a dynamic way all those static words on a page that the motivational specialists write about. He's practically a walking, talking textbook on such things as goal setting, motivation, and achievement. Despite the title of this article, I don't really intend to go into the history of Arnold Schwarzenegger per se as much as his dream...and how one kid made a dream into a reality that is really hard to believe unless you remember that setting goals and working towards them is the way we have always been told to achieve success in anything. The way things turned out, the history of Arnold Schwarzenegger and the history of America are now tied together...and it all started with a dream...an American dream...which gave a young man a goal. Arnold Schwarzenegger was born on July 30, 1947, in the small Austrian town of Thal. Had he not had a dream, he might have followed in his father's footsteps and eventually become the chief of police in Graz, Austria. Fortunately, he was encouraged by his father, Gustav, to participate in sports, and his older brother, Meinhard, gave him a playmate and role model. When you consider that his brother, Meinhard, was more gifted athletically than Arnold, things could have turned out differently. What made everything else fall into place, however, was that it was Arnold who had the dream. At one point in his teen years, you probably would not have been able to picture the future Commando, John Matrix, in the six foot tall, 150 pound Austrian kid. On the other hand, his commando raid on the gym at Graz's soccer stadium, where he and his friends broke windows so that they could get in and work out, might have been a clue. In movies like Predator and Commando, he endured suffering and hardship, but he started getting his taste of that when he had to exercise in a gym sometimes so cold that he still recalls his hands sticking to the chinning bar. For a kid from a small Austrian town in the middle of nowhere to stay with the dream of beding the world's best bodybuilder takes a lot of dedication and courage...and an actor...and the Governor of California...but he did. As with many successful lives, a lot of luck figured into Arnold's success, but through it all runs a common thread. He knew what he wanted, and he was willing to do what was necessary to get it. In another commando-like move, the 20 year-old tank driver even deserted from the Austrian army for a few days and slipped into Germany so that he could compete in, and win, the Junior Mr. Europe event in Stuttgart. Oh, by the way; upon his return to Austria, he was caught and spent 7 days in jail, but when the word of his win got around, he became a hero to the Austrian army and was held up as a model of courage and tenacity. In an interview in 2006, Tom Venuto, natural bodybuilder, fitness coach, author of "Burn the Fat. Feed the Muscle, " and co-author of "Fit Over 40, " was asked what he thought was "the one thing most needed to change a person's lifestyle and improve their health." His response? "A committed decision to reach a predetermined specific goal, combined with burning desire, followed by immediate, massive action repeated consistently for as long as it takes until your goal is reached." Wow! Looks like the mantra that Arnold Schwarzenegger might have chanted on his way to becoming Mr. Olympia (7 times), a Hollywood actor (43 movies), the husband of Maria Shriver (Kennedys - lots of 'em), and current occupant of the California Governor's mansion, doesn't it? Well, if you could look at the Arnold Schwarzenegger history story with glasses that allowed you to see behind the scenes, you would regularly see one "predetermined specific goal, combined with a burning desire" after another. You would see a man who realized that to reach each goal, he would have to take "immediate, massive action repeated consistently for as long as it takes" to reach each goal. It sounds a little as if the ability to stick with a plan once you have a clear picture of your goal is a major factor for success! Even good ol' P. T. Barnum, another, slightly different proponent of the American Dream, and perhaps best known for the Ringling Brothers, Barnum and Bailey Circus, had this to say in his classic essay, "The Art of Money Getting or Golden Rules for Making Money": "How many have almost reached the goal of their ambition, but, losing faith in themselves, have relaxed their energies, and the golden prize has been lost forever." Time and again, people like Napoleon Hill, author of "Think and Grow Rich, " have extolled the virtue of being willing to stick to the path through thick and thin, once you know what the goal is. What you could call the Arnold Schwarzenegger history is not just events and dates, or his vision of the American dream. It has been his willingness to pursue his dreams and goals through all sorts of obstacles, and in spite of a multitude of naysayers, that has taken him to where he sits today. In earlier eras, the willingness to wholeheartedly pursue the American Dream was the subject or underlying theme of fiction and non-fiction works. Today, there is a vast market in self-help and self-improvement products. All sorts of programs and processes are offered for consideration of those wanting a piece of the American Dream. Having stripped away the overlay of word and technique, however, the setting of a goal and the unrelenting effort to achieve that goal, is the factor of most true success stories. Maybe it takes a one-time hick from a small town in Austria to remind us of what we keep saying we have, or want, or wish was still available to an ordinary person in America. Maybe, as at least one article has stated, "Arnold Schwarzenegger is the definition of the American Dream."
Did you find this article useful? For more useful tips and hints, points to ponder and keep in mind, techniques, and insights pertaining to credit card, do please browse for more information at our websites. http://www.yoursgoogleincome.com http://www.freeearningtip.com
|
Since my parents, not me, made the choice for me to be born don't they have to support me for my lifetime?
Since my parents, not me, made the choice for me to be born don't they have to support me for my lifetime
So if most people must work in our society to get money for consumption and to survive, and most people do not find their jobs in anyway satisfying... and a huge chunk of our lives are filled with this drudgery, why do we consent to live this way?
A follow up question,
If we are condemned to a course where nothing fulfills us in a work life, and we are forced into this unfulfilling unsatisfying position for much of our life by being born (which we didn't choose), was this a good decision by parents who knew this was going to be the lot of their child's life (which they can fathorm because they see that most people must do this)? In other words, does the fore-knowledge of condemning their child to an almost inevitable wage/salary unsatisfying life, make it wrong for them to put their child in this position? (I realzie that some people like their jobs, but a majority do not, so in a consequentialist approach I am taking the fact that the greater amount of people are not benefited by having to work).
A follow up question to this, and a deeper one is: If a person didn't want to be born, and that person is forced to do himself harm in order to get out of life, was it moral for parents to put a being in that situation, if they know that that is a possibility? The only option for the child is to accept life or do itself the ultimate harm...would you call that moral to put that undo decision on the offspring?
To work harder and study harder, does not take away from the fact that work can be stressful, menial, tedious, unsatisfying, etc.. But almost all of us take up 40 hours of our week with it. Sure, its the other side of leisure time, its the necessary evil, why is it acceptable that this is how it should be? And if your automatic response is "because there's no better way", then, why put more people into the world to experience this tedium/unsatisfying/stressfulness? If you're automatic response to this question is "working builds character or virtue (or some other nonsense)", my response is: "go join the sado-masichist club in your town, because in my opinion, you are imposing pain on a new being for the enjoyment of watching some supposed good consequence happen down the line (the child builds character or virtue)."
In other words, its NOT ok to have children knowing they will suffer merely for the possible outcome of the child building more character. And that's assuming that work even does build character. That can be another argument.
By work I'm defining what we do to stay alive. As far as leisure-work, that is a value statement to say that people should be working towards creativity. I mean it sounds like a good thing to do, but what makes that the goal, just because it might sound like a noble pursuit to some individuals? And what is defined as "self improvement"? Is this just something everyone should know? Is this something that society should know? Can society ever know that? Also, if the goal of leisure time is to work on creativity, personal growth and self-improvement and an individual who is born does not want to pursue this purpose of life, its a bad choice for that individual. Either the individual must live a life of trying to pursue "self-improvement" (which is not something the individual would like to do) or commit suicide (which is another thing the individual does not want to do). So the parent again, has put the child in a situation where it must accept the terms of life or commit suicide. The crux of the matter is, parents should be able to project upon the child's future life in a realistic fashion. I observe that parents DON'T project how their child's whole life will probably be in any realistic manner. The responsibility is on the parents to project a realistic view of their child's life rather than the idealistic pollyanaizing that occurs. By pollyanaizing i mean that they only imagine their child living the best of situations which is unrealistic and detrimental to the child who will in turn be born and obviously not live the charmed life the parents had imagined.
I've read David Benator's book and I simply can't see how anyone can disagree with his conclusions if they follow his main argument with a clarity of thinking philosophers should be prepared to cultivate. I am going to explain his theory in more detail than previous posters on this forum because an overview of his book warrants and requires careful wording in order to facilitate full comprehension in the reader.
His argument is simple but devastatingly persuasive. He states that if you are born you experience both good (positive mental states) and bad (negative mental states) during the course of your life. If, however, one is never born then one won't experience bad (pain, anxiety, discomfort etc). This is a good thing obviously. Of course, if one is never born one never experiences any po
Get the answers
|
|
Since my parents, not me, made the choice for me to be born don't they have to support me for my lifetime So?
Since my parents, not me, made the choice for me to be born don't they have to support me for my lifetime
So if most people must work in our society to get money for consumption and to survive, and most people do not find their jobs in anyway satisfying... and a huge chunk of our lives are filled with this drudgery, why do we consent to live this way?
A follow up question,
If we are condemned to a course where nothing fulfills us in a work life, and we are forced into this unfulfilling unsatisfying position for much of our life by being born (which we didn't choose), was this a good decision by parents who knew this was going to be the lot of their child's life (which they can fathorm because they see that most people must do this)? In other words, does the fore-knowledge of condemning their child to an almost inevitable wage/salary unsatisfying life, make it wrong for them to put their child in this position? (I realzie that some people like their jobs, but a majority do not, so in a consequentialist approach I am taking the fact that the greater amount of people are not benefited by having to work).
A follow up question to this, and a deeper one is: If a person didn't want to be born, and that person is forced to do himself harm in order to get out of life, was it moral for parents to put a being in that situation, if they know that that is a possibility? The only option for the child is to accept life or do itself the ultimate harm...would you call that moral to put that undo decision on the offspring?
To work harder and study harder, does not take away from the fact that work can be stressful, menial, tedious, unsatisfying, etc.. But almost all of us take up 40 hours of our week with it. Sure, its the other side of leisure time, its the necessary evil, why is it acceptable that this is how it should be? And if your automatic response is "because there's no better way", then, why put more people into the world to experience this tedium/unsatisfying/stressfulness? If you're automatic response to this question is "working builds character or virtue (or some other nonsense)", my response is: "go join the sado-masichist club in your town, because in my opinion, you are imposing pain on a new being for the enjoyment of watching some supposed good consequence happen down the line (the child builds character or virtue)."
In other words, its NOT ok to have children knowing they will suffer merely for the possible outcome of the child building more character. And that's assuming that work even does build character. That can be another argument.
By work I'm defining what we do to stay alive. As far as leisure-work, that is a value statement to say that people should be working towards creativity. I mean it sounds like a good thing to do, but what makes that the goal, just because it might sound like a noble pursuit to some individuals? And what is defined as "self improvement"? Is this just something everyone should know? Is this something that society should know? Can society ever know that? Also, if the goal of leisure time is to work on creativity, personal growth and self-improvement and an individual who is born does not want to pursue this purpose of life, its a bad choice for that individual. Either the individual must live a life of trying to pursue "self-improvement" (which is not something the individual would like to do) or commit suicide (which is another thing the individual does not want to do). So the parent again, has put the child in a situation where it must accept the terms of life or commit suicide. The crux of the matter is, parents should be able to project upon the child's future life in a realistic fashion. I observe that parents DON'T project how their child's whole life will probably be in any realistic manner. The responsibility is on the parents to project a realistic view of their child's life rather than the idealistic pollyanaizing that occurs. By pollyanaizing i mean that they only imagine their child living the best of situations which is unrealistic and detrimental to the child who will in turn be born and obviously not live the charmed life the parents had imagined.
I've read David Benator's book and I simply can't see how anyone can disagree with his conclusions if they follow his main argument with a clarity of thinking philosophers should be prepared to cultivate. I am going to explain his theory in more detail than previous posters on this forum because an overview of his book warrants and requires careful wording in order to facilitate full comprehension in the reader.
His argument is simple but devastatingly persuasive. He states that if you are born you experience both good (positive mental states) and bad (negative mental states) during the course of your life. If, however, one is never born then one won't experience bad (pain, anxiety, discomfort etc). This is a good thing obviously. Of course, if one is never born one never experiences any po
Get the answers
|
|
Since my parents, not me, made the choice for me to be born don't they have to support me for my lifetime So?
Since my parents, not me, made the choice for me to be born don't they have to support me for my lifetime
So if most people must work in our society to get money for consumption and to survive, and most people do not find their jobs in anyway satisfying... and a huge chunk of our lives are filled with this drudgery, why do we consent to live this way?
A follow up question,
If we are condemned to a course where nothing fulfills us in a work life, and we are forced into this unfulfilling unsatisfying position for much of our life by being born (which we didn't choose), was this a good decision by parents who knew this was going to be the lot of their child's life (which they can fathorm because they see that most people must do this)? In other words, does the fore-knowledge of condemning their child to an almost inevitable wage/salary unsatisfying life, make it wrong for them to put their child in this position? (I realzie that some people like their jobs, but a majority do not, so in a consequentialist approach I am taking the fact that the greater amount of people are not benefited by having to work).
A follow up question to this, and a deeper one is: If a person didn't want to be born, and that person is forced to do himself harm in order to get out of life, was it moral for parents to put a being in that situation, if they know that that is a possibility? The only option for the child is to accept life or do itself the ultimate harm...would you call that moral to put that undo decision on the offspring?
To work harder and study harder, does not take away from the fact that work can be stressful, menial, tedious, unsatisfying, etc.. But almost all of us take up 40 hours of our week with it. Sure, its the other side of leisure time, its the necessary evil, why is it acceptable that this is how it should be? And if your automatic response is "because there's no better way", then, why put more people into the world to experience this tedium/unsatisfying/stressfulness? If you're automatic response to this question is "working builds character or virtue (or some other nonsense)", my response is: "go join the sado-masichist club in your town, because in my opinion, you are imposing pain on a new being for the enjoyment of watching some supposed good consequence happen down the line (the child builds character or virtue)."
In other words, its NOT ok to have children knowing they will suffer merely for the possible outcome of the child building more character. And that's assuming that work even does build character. That can be another argument.
By work I'm defining what we do to stay alive. As far as leisure-work, that is a value statement to say that people should be working towards creativity. I mean it sounds like a good thing to do, but what makes that the goal, just because it might sound like a noble pursuit to some individuals? And what is defined as "self improvement"? Is this just something everyone should know? Is this something that society should know? Can society ever know that? Also, if the goal of leisure time is to work on creativity, personal growth and self-improvement and an individual who is born does not want to pursue this purpose of life, its a bad choice for that individual. Either the individual must live a life of trying to pursue "self-improvement" (which is not something the individual would like to do) or commit suicide (which is another thing the individual does not want to do). So the parent again, has put the child in a situation where it must accept the terms of life or commit suicide. The crux of the matter is, parents should be able to project upon the child's future life in a realistic fashion. I observe that parents DON'T project how their child's whole life will probably be in any realistic manner. The responsibility is on the parents to project a realistic view of their child's life rather than the idealistic pollyanaizing that occurs. By pollyanaizing i mean that they only imagine their child living the best of situations which is unrealistic and detrimental to the child who will in turn be born and obviously not live the charmed life the parents had imagined.
I've read David Benator's book and I simply can't see how anyone can disagree with his conclusions if they follow his main argument with a clarity of thinking philosophers should be prepared to cultivate. I am going to explain his theory in more detail than previous posters on this forum because an overview of his book warrants and requires careful wording in order to facilitate full comprehension in the reader.
His argument is simple but devastatingly persuasive. He states that if you are born you experience both good (positive mental states) and bad (negative mental states) during the course of your life. If, however, one is never born then one won't experience bad (pain, anxiety, discomfort etc). This is a good thing obviously. Of course, if one is never born one never experiences any po
Get the answers
|
Next page: Personal Self Improvement
Bookmark/Share This Page:
Personal Growth And Self Improvement News
Read more...
Read more...
|
Truman students seeking challenge in walk to St. LouisKirksville Daily Express and Daily NewsHe said that he believes at first glance that the 188.8 mile walk to St. Louis seems somewhat impossible, but that he accepts that challenge as an opportunity for self-improvement. Last year, Schlake said that he had gotten about 100 miles into the ... |
Read more...
|
Straight goods on golf geniusWinnipeg Free PressBook review Moe & Me Encounters with Moe Norman, Golf's Mysterious Genius By Lorne Rubinstein ECW Press, 199 pages, $20 Related Items Articles Wacky self-improvement memoir written on makeshift treadmill CALLING someone a genius these days is a ... |
Read more...
Read more...
|
Self Improvement Wednesday - The science of energyABC Online (blog)Your teacher is Emeritus Professor Brian Milton from the School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering at the University of New South Wales. The origins of thermodynamics were in 18th century attempts to understand and improve the steam engine. |
Read more...
|
Workshop on personality developmentThe HinduNeha Foundation will be organising one-week workshop on 'self-improvement' for students aged between 13 and 19 years from May 21 to 25 between 9.30 am and 1.30 pm at No. 153, Bells Road, Chepauk. The programme will focus on self-motivation, ... |
Read more...
|
|
