Negativity isn’t negative, and positivty isn’t positive. The attitude towards it directs your response. In this post, I discuss how primal instincts corresponds with optimism, realism, and pessimism from the perspective of attitude – and whether or not you should change yours to live a more meaningful life.
There are people who love to live, who love to wake up and indulge in everything life has to offer. Every gift and challenge is welcomed with open arms, because they know life comes with obstacles, and these obstacles are worth fighting for if it means it’ll shape you as a person. And then there are others who sees life for what it really is. The realists sees the beauty and the pain, the suffering and the sheer happiness. They understand the importance of socialization, but their strength in individuality allows them to often have a steadfast foot on the ground. Then there are the pessimists, the individuals who seems to dwell more in the mystique than the present moment. Living in a world surrounded by other people has its perks, but pessimists tend to focus on the negativity of it. The overwhelm, the competition, the comparison, and so forth.
History has taught us a lot. People have suffered in injustice, in war, in lies, and in corruption. People have suffered in mischief, in defamation, and in dishonor. Nowadays, people are suffering in wanting to be accepted, respected, and find themselves a place in this world. Isn’t it easy to focus on everything negative? We always view our lives in comparison to our surroundings, and that makes sense. But is this pessimistic nature a dishonest way of living? I think it is. Surely, we are aware that we are not alone on earth, but not only that, we are also taking the different levels of consciousness into consideration. It would only make sense that we would conform our ways in order to feel at peace with our likeminded humans. That would at least be our instinctive response. But that comparison doesn’t only do us good. To return back to my original point: humans have been the cause for suffering in war, injustice, lies, corruption, and so forth. They are interchangeable. Why? I don’t know. It sounds ridiculous that humans are the main reason for each other’s suffering, but I can’t see how it’s any different. Instincts which is rooted in our subconscious are both a blessing and a curse, but with the added weight of not feeling good enough, worthy enough, feeling burned out from trying to live a life you can be happty about, that does make life more unbearable. We thrive in unity, but sometimes it doesn’t sound too bad to imagine yourself alone in this world. Just for the sake of clearing your mind and assess the realistic nature of your goals and dreams. This add-on is realism. The capability of the people around us is comforting, but it can be overwhelming. The profundity of emotion and the expansion of the human mind can go over and beyond curiosity, and it can become too overwhelming to the point of prolonged response. Perhaps that’s the reason why stress, depression, and anxiety exists? And then there’s optimism. Imagine being the only human alive and having been that your entire life. You would feel limited and alone, but would you feel worthless? I don’t think so. Why? Because you would have no one to compare yourself to. Our primal instincts would be lacking the bigger picture, but since we weren’t deprived of socialization, we would survive. But being an optimist born into an empty world just to be thrown into society, would almost cause them to become pessimists. The peace and quiet would disappear and be replaced with overwhelm and chaos. However, if they lived alone, they would take in the beauty of the world. Is this furthermore a dishonest way of living? Yes! Because the limitations of what could be isn’t a way of living a fulfilling life. If pessimistic people were born into an empty world, I believe their primal instincts would yearn for fulfillment which they would get from socialization. A bigger purpose, a bigger meaning. Likewise, if they were thrown into society, their curiosity would be fulfilled, making them more optimistic. To be far left or far right almost seems to mean that your happiness is contextual, rather than being a steadfast happiness within? Add another person to the empty world, and psychologically, the two of you would have an unbreakable bond because you need each other. Add a third person, and they become almost redundant, however they make the functionality easier. Now add 8 billion humans, and that evolution would have brought a lot of positivity as well as negativity, and confusion, but also opportunity. The limitations of being alone is exchanged with the opportunity brought by unity, so in theory, there are both good and bad to live amongst other people, as well as to be the only person born into an empty world. With this information, I can’t help but to think that maybe humans were never the problem. Humans are used as an excuse for us to feel inferior, because without them – without the clash of negativity and positivity – we would lack purpose and fulfillment. The limitations of being alone would allow us to live an honest but ignorant life, but living amongst each other will force us to compare ourselves. Perhaps that’s where realists live the truth, and the rest of us live a contorted version of the truth. Realists will find challenges in a competitive world, but they will find strength in unity. On the other hand, they will find individuality in solitude, which allows them to have a clear mind and a sense of self.