If you tend to worry about a lot of things, you're no different from any exception achiever. Worrying is not a bad thing because it can often encourage us to better ourselves and improve.However, worrying to the point of catstrophizing is dangerous and will ultimately end your career (worst-case scenario).It's important to find a balance where you have enough distance from your "impending doom" thoughts in order to see them clearly.

The Right Amount of Worry

<ol><li>What is the financial state of your company, the industry it's in, and the economy?</li><li>What's the general culture of your company/organization/institution?</li><li>Does your manager think and act critically?</li><li>Do you have any personal biases and if so, what are they?</li></ol>

Questions To Determine If Your Fear is Rational

There are many fears surrounding job stability and it is reasonable for it to cause you worry however doing the proper research on your company or ask for direct feedback from your manager, this allows you to get clues on whether you have to prepare for a potential layoff or not.It's okay to overthink things but it's much more important to think abour your mental health and that your fears should be grounded in evidence. Regardless, always keep in mind that if in the case that you were fired, you will bounce back because your career is not over yet.

Awareness of Work Environment

Stashed ideas

Where your work meets your life. See more from Ascend <a dir="ltr" href="https://hbr.org/insight-center/ascend">here </a>.

What do Elon Musk, Serena Williams, and Leonardo DiCaprio, have in common?

Besides the fact that they are all wildly successful in their fields, they are all also big worriers. <a dir="ltr" href="https://fortune.com/2017/08/03/elon-musks-tweets-about-mental-health-are-a-reminder-that-great-highs-often-come-with-invisible-terrible-lows/">Elon Musk </a>has talked about the “terrible lows and unrelenting stress” of his work and life. <a dir="ltr" href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/serena-williams-anxiety-motherhood_n_5ae1d4fbe4b02baed1b76a51">Serena Williams </a>has shared her experience with self-doubt and anxiety. And <a dir="ltr" href="https://www.rollingstone.com/movies/movie-news/leonardo-dicaprio-faces-his-demons-116522/">Leonardo DiCaprio </a>has said he’s worried about the future of his career.

Surprised? Don’t be. Exceptional achievers tend to worry <a dir="ltr" href="https://www.fastcompany.com/3050989/a-psychologist-breaks-down-the-pros-and-cons-of-perfectionism">more than others </a>— about failing, disappointing others, not meeting their own high expectations, and yes, even losing their jobs.

If you’re just starting out in your career, it’s likely that you worry about these things too. According to a <a dir="ltr" href="https://www.mindsharepartners.org/mentalhealthatworkreport">2019 study </a>, younger generations are struggling with anxiety at work at higher rates than their predecessors. Gen Zers are three times more likely to experience anxiety-related symptoms at work. For millennials, that multiple increases to four.

My advice for you is this: First, know that worrying is not necessarily a bad thing. Worrying about your performance can often encourage you to improve and learn.  And as I’m sure you’ve heard, we are living in a very unpredictable world. Being prepared for a variety of different possibilities and outcomes, like getting fired or laid off, is probably a good idea.

At the same time, too much worrying, to the point of <a dir="ltr" href="https://hbr.org/2020/09/what-to-do-when-your-mind-always-dwells-on-the-worst-case-scenario">catastrophizing </a>, can be dangerous for you and your career. When we focus too much on the worst-case scenario, we lose our sense of reality, which can impact our relationships, productivity, and mental health. The key is to find a balance, and to do this, you need to create enough distance from your circling thoughts to see things clearly.

Here are some questions that will help you determine whether or not your fears are grounded in reality, specifically when they surround losing your job.

What’s the general financial state of your organization, industry, and economy?

You should worry: 2020 likely increased your fears surrounding job stability. Many organizations were impacted by the pandemic, <a dir="ltr" href="https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2020/unemployment-rate-rises-to-record-high-14-point-7-percent-in-april-2020.htm?view_full">general unemployment </a>went up, and young people were disproportionately affected. People between the ages of 16 and 29 represented <a dir="ltr" href="https://www.brookings.edu/research/unemployment-among-young-workers-during-covid-19/">less than one-fourth of the workforce in 2020 </a>, and yet they still accounted for one-third of the rise in unemployment during the first quarter. When you look at the data, it’s hard to imagine not being at least a little concerned.

If the general financial state of your company is bad, it’s reasonable to worry that you might get fired or laid off. But this can be hard to gauge, as not all companies are transparent about their finances. To ground your fears in reality, do some research on the state of your industry, as well as your country’s economy. Search for terms like: “Current unemployment rate in [insert your industry],” or “[Insert your country] economy in 2021.” That will lend you some clues on whether or not you should be prepared for a potential layoff.

You shouldn’t worry: If, after your search, you discover that your industry’s financial state is solid, that’s a sign that your job is probably safe. And in many places — including the U.S. — the overall economy <a dir="ltr" href="https://www.manpowergroup.com/workforce-insights/data-driven-workforce-insights/manpowergroup-employment-outlook-survey-results#%20">has been recovering </a>. Unemployment rates have <a dir="ltr" href="https://data.oecd.org/unemp/unemployment-rate.htm">continued to go down </a> globally (compared to the first few months of 2020), which means you are statistically less likely to lose your job now as a result of the pandemic. Being kept in employment despite the pandemic should make you feel very valued by your company, especially if it’s struggling.

What’s the general culture of your organization?

You should worry: Some companies have transparent, open, feedback-oriented <a dir="ltr" href="https://www.greatplacetowork.com/resources/blog/three-ways-to-lead-a-transparent-culture">cultures </a>. If you work for one of these organizations, then you will probably benefit from predictable HR processes, including standardized performance reviews, and management decisions that seem <a dir="ltr" href="https://www.amazon.com/Fair-Talk-Three-Powerful-Feedback/dp/1912555093">rational and fair </a>. Unfortunately, most people don’t work for open organizations like this and are instead forced to analyze what actions, events, or negative feedback might be warning signs. If the general culture of your organization sounds more like the latter situation, it’s natural to worry more about losing your job, especially if you’re concerned about your performance or getting negative feedback from your manager. In these circumstances it is useful to understand how your boss thinks and operates (we’ll talk about that next).

You shouldn’t worry:  If your company’s culture is generally open and fair, being fired will not be a surprise. It will likely follow an explicit explanation that there is a gap between what you can bring to the organization and what the organization needs — a gap that is hard to close. So you can stop worrying, unless you’re having these types of conversations with your manager or HR department. If, on the other hand, you are meeting the responsibilities set out for your role and are consistently getting positive or constructive feedback <a dir="ltr" href="https://hbr.org/2015/09/the-best-managers-are-boring-managers">from your manager, </a> that’s a great sign. They’re not going to lie to you about a positive performance.

You should worry: The best way to assess whether or not you may get fired is to ask your boss directly. It may be a bit awkward, but you could approach the topic in a subtle way. For instance, during your next one-on-one meeting, you might say, “I’d love to hear your feedback on my performance. Do you feel I’m meeting your expectations, or are there areas of my work I can improve?” You can even follow up with, “Is there anything I should be doing to bring more value to you and the company?” <a dir="ltr" href="https://hbr.org/2016/03/two-thirds-of-managers-are-uncomfortable-communicating-with-employees">Managers often struggle </a>to provide negative feedback, but you can make it easier for them to critique you. If the feedback you get is overly negative and not constructive, that could be a sign that you should worry, but remember that critical feedback can be a good thing. It can show that your manager is interested in your growth.

Some people may not feel comfortable asking their manager for feedback directly, and that’s okay. In this case, you can try to look for indicators in your boss’s behavior. Ask your teammates whether or not your manager provides them with constructive feedback on their performance, communicates with them regularly and clearly, and if they find your boss predictable or not. You and your coworkers may have different perspectives on the same person, but your <a dir="ltr" href="https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/TPM-03-2019-0025/full/html">collective understanding </a>of your boss will help all of you interpret their behavior more clearly, and may relieve any false concerns you have about getting fired.

If you do, however, find that your boss is providing you with more negative feedback than your coworkers, that’s something to pay attention to. For example, if your boss often tells you, “We really need to get this done faster,” or, “Next time, try approaching the project in this way,” but doesn’t give constant correction to your teammates, that’s not a great sign. This doesn’t necessarily mean you’re on the verge of getting fired, but it may signal that you need to have a more direct conversation with your manager to get on the same page. You can say, “I noticed that I’ve been getting more negative feedback lately, and I want to make sure I’m doing my best work. Can you give me some recommendations on how to improve my performance?”

Whatever you do, always have that conversation with your manager. These situations can be nuanced, and very often, <a dir="ltr" href="https://hbr.org/2020/11/ask-an-expert-what-should-i-do-if-my-boss-is-gaslighting-me">they may be a part of the problem </a>. If you don’t trust your manager to be open with you and feel you are being treated differently than others, it could be worth investigating the issue with your HR department.

You shouldn’t worry: If you ask your manager for explicit feedback and their response is that they are happy with your performance, take them at face value and ease up on your worrying. Likewise, in sharing your experiences with your coworkers, if you find that your boss communicates with you all in a similar manner, that’s a good sign too. You may find out that your boss responds to everyone with, “I need it faster,” or, “You should have done it like this,” and that this is not a sign that they’re mad at you or that you’re on the verge of losing your job. Not every small action from your boss will be an indicator, and the better you get to know them, the easier they will be to read.

Are You Actually Going to Get Fired?

Sparta was the first known functioning democracy. This was 150 years before the introduction of democracy in Athens.They were a thinly populated state but they were greatly celebrated and was one of the most powerful cities.The Spartan Constitution was written by Xenophon, a foreign dweller into the land of Sparta. Without his work, we wouldn't have any accounts on how the Spartan life became.

The Spartan Constitution

Self Improvement

The Spartan Constitution was made up of the following:<ul><li>The two Kings;</li><li>The 28 Elders in Council, also known as the Gerousia;</li><li>The five Ephors; and</li><li>the Assembly, which consisted of only all male adult Spartan citizens</li></ul>The two kings' jobs mainly involved religious and military activities.The Ephors were the overseers of the kings' activities and wrote legislation.The Assembly would vote on legistations and the Gerousia held veto power.

The Organization of the Spartan Constitution

Sparta, despite their mindset of being "foreign" in their own land, they had a military prowess that were feared by many.Regardless, they were equals in terms of rights and wealth as all adult male Spartan citizens were given a plot of land and slaves to work on the land for them.The quality of wealth eroded but due to inheritance laws and the continued existence of private property the wealth had become concentrated in the hands of fewer families, mainly the Spartan Heiresses.

Spartan Wealth

Sparta's unique constitution. Dual kingship, Council of Elders, Assembly and Ephors.

Ancient historians had no convenient system for marking the dates of events – which makes it even more difficult for modern historians to try to apply dates to the events described.  We therefore have no way of dating the Spartan revolution with certainty.  Ancient sources agree, however, that following a period of unrest – possibly even a rebellion of some kind – new, revolutionary laws were introduced.  These laws were submitted to the oracle at Delphi, which advised the Spartans that they would live better under these laws than any others.  These laws gave an Assembly of all citizens the final say in all matters, making Sparta the first – but by no means the most radical – democracy. As is typical of early, innovative institutions, later modifications introduced in other cities made the Spartan democracy appear conservative as time went by.  Sparta, for example, never entirely freed itself of its kings.  Two jointly ruling hereditary monarchs from different families held restricted and mostly ceremonial functions throughout Sparta's history as an independent state – very much as the English monarchy functions today. Another notoriously conservative aspect of the Spartan constitution was the Council of Elders, or Gerousia.  Although this body was elected, as were similar institutions in other cities, the Elders had to be over 60 years of age and were elected for life.  In consequence, they were not subject to the most effective of democratic censures: the need to be re-elected. Nevertheless, Sparta's constitution clearly gave precedence to the Assembly.  The Assembly, which is believed to have met on a monthly basis, was composed of all adult male citizens.  Although it could vote only on the bills presented by the Council, the common misconception that the Assembly could only vote yes or no is belied by accounts of lively (not to say rowdy) debates.  (Note, also, that modern legislatures also vote on bills presented and do not evolve legislation spontaneously during debate.)  Certainly, the Spartan Assembly was powerful enough to exile kings.  Nevertheless, the Spartan Assembly never attained the absolute tyranny of the Athenian Assembly – a point praised widely by ancient writers, who saw in Sparta's more balanced (bicameral) democracy a means of controlling the fickleness of the mob.  Most people today, used to representational democracy, would feel more comfortable in Sparta's democracy than in that of Athens, where many officials were chosen by lottery and the votes of illiterate and impoverished citizens were easily manipulated and purchased by demagogues. Sparta also had five elected ephors.  The ephors were executives responsible for carrying out the day-to-day business of running the city, including the receiving and sending of ambassadors.  Initially they appear to have been little more than clerks, but at the time of Chilon (mid-6th century) they acquired more power and prestige.  Acting together during any one period, they could have a significant impact on Spartan policy.  For example, they are credited with forcing King Anaxandridas into taking a second wife in the second half of the 6th century.  However, their power was not as enduring as that of the monarchs or the Gerousia, because the ephors were elected for only one year and could not be re-elected.  The most radical feature of Sparta's constitution, however, was the introduction of land reform.  Although this event, too, is lost in the mists of undated ancient history, all ancient historians agree that at some time (probably in the late 8th or early 7th century BC, by our reckoning) Spartan society underwent a severe crisis.  A rebellion or civil war so threatened the continued existence of the city-state that the citizens were prepared to accept radical new laws – effectively, a new constitution.  This constitution, reputedly developed by Lycurgus, not only gave power to an Assembly of all citizens, but included a redistribution of the land.  The land was divided into equal plots of sufficient size to support a man and his family, and each citizen was given a plot, or estate – a kleros.  Henceforth the Spartans called themselves equals, or Peers – because they were equal not only in rights but also in wealth. There is no question that with time this equality of wealth was eroded.  By the second half of the 5th century BC, wealth had become concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer families.  Spartan citizens were no longer equally wealthy.  This has led some modern historians to question that the land reform ever took place or to try to explain how inequalities came into the system.  One answer is that only some of the land, most probably that in the immediate vicinity of Sparta (that is, in the Eurotas valley), was divided into equal portions, but that other estates – notably land conquered later in Messenia – were not divided equally and were not controlled by the state.  Another factor influencing the distribution of land over time would have been inheritance laws, particularly the right of women to inherit.  An excellent short discussion of Sparta's land reform is provided in Paul Cartledge's Sparta and Laconia: A Regional History 1300 to 362 BC (Routledge, London, 1979), and a more comprehensive treatment of the subject can be found in Stephen Hodkinson, Property and Wealth in Classical Sparta (Duckworth, London, 2000). Yet even if Spartans were not in fact equally wealthy, the myth of equality remained powerful, and laws prohibited the hoarding of wealth, particularly the ownership of gold and silver coins (possibly all gold and silver).  The ostentatious display of wealth was frowned upon socially.  This set Sparta apart from the other Greek city-states, where the landed aristocracy, wealthy merchants, and manufacturers engaged in extravagant displays of wealth and competed for the honor of donating the most generous gifts to their respective cities.  Spartan dress, taste, and style were notoriously modest, even austere, but Spartans were not crude, dirty, or unkempt – as contemporary art amply demonstrates.  In fact, modern eyes might well have preferred the Spartan style of whitewashed buildings to the gaudy painting of temples and statues common in the rest of the ancient world.  Certainly, while the citizens of other cities could be reduced to beggary, all Spartans were guaranteed a minimum standard of living – something most modern observers would applaud rather than condemn.

<ul><li>The Spartan constitution, commonly dated to the early 7th century BC, is the first known constitution that vested supreme power in the hands of an Assembly composed of all citizens.  Thus, Sparta was the first known functioning democracy – roughly 150 years before the introduction of democracy in Athens. </li> </ul>

<ul><li>Sparta was the only Greek city-state to introduce a land reform dividing land equally among citizens. Those who received a state allotment were henceforth known as "Equals." </li> </ul>

<ul><li>In addition to the Assembly of citizens, Sparta retained two kings, with largely ceremonial functions, just like the British monarchy today. </li> </ul>

<ul><li>Sparta had a bicameral legislature, divided into the Assembly and the Council of Elders. While the Assembly was made up of all citizens, the Council of Elders (Gerousia) was composed of the two kings and 28 elected citizens over the age of 60.  The members of the Gerousia held their positions for life, making the Council of Elders a conservative and notoriously cautious body.  While many ancient philosophers praised the moderating influence of this body, most modern scholars view it as a non-democratic element in the Spartan constitution.  </li> </ul>

Spartan Constitution

<ul>
<li>On the one end of the spectrum, you find the pure optimist. He is confident everything is great, and all negativity is a character flaw.</li>
<li>Next to him, the extreme optimist accepts that bad things sometimes happen to other people.</li>
<li>Then comes the optimist who can be sceptical of other people&#39;s optimism.</li>
<li>After him, you find the optimist who is confident in himself and equally pessimistic about others.</li>
</ul>

The range of optimists

<ul>
<li>The single-issue optimist/pessimist views everyone&#39;s future as being hopeless because of a handful of things that stand in the way.</li>
<li>Next to the half-optimist are people who are pessimistic with their words but optimistic with their actions.</li>
<li>In the middle, we have the reasonable optimist who acknowledges that life is full of setbacks but who remain confident because they know setbacks are a small part of the bigger picture.</li>
<li>The possibilist knows progress is likely but sees it as playing the odds.</li>
</ul>

The middle range of optimists/pessimists

<ul>
<li>The closet pessimists view historical progress as coincidence but think low growth or stagnation is more likely.</li>
<li>Next are the sceptics. They agree that progress is likely, but question the validity of the data or if something is missing.</li>
<li>Then we get to the first tier of true pessimists. They know things will improve, but they doubt they&#39;ll be part of it.</li>
<li>Next comes the pessimist who sees progress as only benefiting small groups of people.</li>
<li>A level down is those who quietly hope for decline (to benefit their investments.)</li>
</ul>

The first range of pessimists

<ul>
<li>The real gloomy pessimists think evidence of past progress is misleading, incomplete or manipulated. Life is as hard as it has been in the past and will stay that way.</li>
<li>The cynics view anyone promoting progress as being secretly motivated by power and greed.</li>
<li>The pure pessimist is the extreme. He thinks everything is bad and will always be bad. He views positivity as a character flaw.</li>
</ul>

The realm of extreme pessimists

At one end you have the pure optimist. He thinks everything is great, will always be great, and sees all negativity as a character flaw. Part is rooted in ego: he’s so confident in himself that he can’t fathom anything going wrong. Then there are extremely optimistic people who accept that bad things occasionally happen to other people. They read about bad news with a detached sense of fascination, but view their own future as clear sailing and can’t imagine anything different. Next are the optimists who are capable of being skeptical of other peoples’ optimism. They view their future as pristine but possess a low-grade BS detector, sensing when optimism is actually a sales pitch. One rung down are the optimists who are wholly confident in themselves but equally pessimistic about others. They’re easy to mistake for pessimists, but they actually view their own futures as flawless. Then there’s a special breed: The optimist who views everyone’s future as bleak only because a few things, or a few people, stand in the way. They’re single-issue pessimists who would otherwise be optimistic about themselves and almost all other people. They’re miserable, because a perfect world seems so close yet so far away. Next are people who are pessimistic with their words but optimistic with their actions. They’re attracted to pessimism because it’s intellectually seductive and gets people’s attention. But their investment portfolios are clearly set up for a world where things get better. Many pundits fall into this category. In the middle we have what I call reasonable optimists: those who acknowledge that history is a constant chain of problems and disappointments and setbacks, but who remain optimistic because they know setbacks don’t prevent eventual progress. They sound like hypocrites and flip-floppers, but often they’re just looking further ahead than other people. Then come the probabilists. They know progress is likely but couch everything as a matter of playing the odds. “I am not an optimist,” Hans Rosling once said. “I’m a very serious possibilist.” Now we get into closet pessimists: Those who view historical progress as a one-off fluke, but think low growth or stagnation is more likely in the future. They’re proud of what we’ve accomplished but doubt it can continue. Further down come the skeptics. They don’t disagree that progress is possible, even likely. But they have such a high bar for proving it that only hindsight observations are convincing – and even then, the question whether the data is accurate, or if there’s something else we’re not looking at. They’re nice people but torture themselves in this state, because they know progress is occurring but rather than enjoy it then fight to deny it. Then we get into the first tier of true pessimists. They know the world will get better, things will improve, business will become more productive – but they don’t think they personally will be part of the progress. Next are those who view progress as only benefiting small groups of people while the well-being of the majority stagnates or declines as they are exploited by a small group of winners. (Perhaps the most reasonable group of pessimists). A level down are those who quietly hope for decline, usually to benefit their investments. They often say things like “I hope my forecast isn’t right” but nothing makes them happier than signs of a new recession, financial crisis, or rise in inflation. Soon you get into some real gloom: people who think evidence of past progress is misleading, incomplete, or manipulated to paint a rosy picture, and that reality is life is as hard and inefficient today as it’s been for a while and will stay that way in the future. Then come the cynics, who view anyone promoting progress as being secretly motivated by power and fueled by corruption. And at last come the pure pessimists. He thinks everything is terrible, will always be terrible, and sees all positivity as a character flaw. Part is rooted in ego: he has so little confidence in himself that he can’t fathom anything going right. He’s the polar opposite of the pure optimist, and just as detached from reality.

At one end you have the pure optimist . He thinks everything is great, will always be great, and sees all negativity as a character flaw. Part is rooted in ego: he’s so confident in himself that he can’t fathom anything going wrong.

Then there are extremely optimistic people who accept that bad things occasionally happen to other people . They read about bad news with a detached sense of fascination, but view their own future as clear sailing and can’t imagine anything different.

Next are the optimists who are capable of being skeptical of other peoples’ optimism . They view their future as pristine but possess a low-grade BS detector, sensing when optimism is actually a sales pitch.

One rung down are the optimists who are wholly confident in themselves but equally pessimistic about others. They’re easy to mistake for pessimists, but they actually view their own futures as flawless.

Then there’s a special breed: The optimist who views everyone’s future as bleak only because a few things, or a few people, stand in the way . They’re single-issue pessimists who would otherwise be optimistic about themselves and almost all other people. They’re miserable, because a perfect world seems so close yet so far away.

Next are people who are pessimistic with their words but optimistic with their actions . They’re attracted to pessimism because it’s intellectually seductive and gets people’s attention. But their investment portfolios are clearly set up for a world where things get better. Many pundits fall into this category.

In the middle we have what I call reasonable optimists : those who acknowledge that history is a constant chain of problems and disappointments and setbacks, but who remain optimistic because they know setbacks don’t prevent eventual progress. They sound like hypocrites and flip-floppers, but often they’re just looking further ahead than other people.

Then come the probabilists . They know progress is likely but couch everything as a matter of playing the odds. “I am not an optimist,” Hans Rosling once said. “I’m a very serious possibilist.”

Now we get into closet pessimists : Those who view historical progress as a one-off fluke, but think low growth or stagnation is more likely in the future. They’re proud of what we’ve accomplished but doubt it can continue.

Further down come the skeptics . They don’t disagree that progress is possible, even likely. But they have such a high bar for proving it that only hindsight observations are convincing – and even then, the question whether the data is accurate, or if there’s something else we’re not looking at. They’re nice people but torture themselves in this state, because they know progress is occurring but rather than enjoy it then fight to deny it.

Then we get into the first tier of true pessimists . They know the world will get better, things will improve, business will become more productive – but they don’t think they personally will be part of the progress.

Next are those who view progress as only benefiting small groups of people while the well-being of the majority stagnates or declines as they are exploited by a small group of winners. (Perhaps the most reasonable group of pessimists).

A level down are those who quietly hope for decline , usually to benefit their investments. They often say things like “I hope my forecast isn’t right” but nothing makes them happier than signs of a new recession, financial crisis, or rise in inflation.

Soon you get into some real gloom : people who think evidence of past progress is misleading, incomplete, or manipulated to paint a rosy picture, and that reality is life is as hard and inefficient today as it’s been for a while and will stay that way in the future.

Then come the cynics , who view anyone promoting progress as being secretly motivated by power and fueled by corruption.

And at last come the pure pessimists. He thinks everything is terrible, will always be terrible, and sees all positivity as a character flaw. Part is rooted in ego: he has so little confidence in himself that he can’t fathom anything going right. He’s the polar opposite of the pure optimist, and just as detached from reality.

The Spectrum of Optimism and Pessimism

A mind that doesn’t need anything in particular, and is not favouring or attached to any sort of condition, expectation or preference would be at home and at ease no matter what the situation, circumstance or event.
Our mind is always clinging to how it wants things and does not like it otherwise. A Buddhist verse, stated in the Diamond Sutra, says that one should develop a mind that clings to nothing.

A Non-Clinging Mind

A non-clinging mind means having expectations of people treating you in a certain way, so you won’t be annoyed no matter how you are treated.
We tend to cling to how we want things to turn out. If we let go, we don’t need people to behave in any particular way and would be blissful and loving no matter how people or things are.

Benefits Of A Non-Clinging Mind

<ol>
<li>Notice when you are clinging to something and how it feels, like when you get frustrated, overeat or rush to your favourite distractions like Twitter or Netflix.</li>
<li>Practice a simple daily meditation of 5 to 10 minutes for a month. Check how much you cling to your phone in the middle of meditating.</li>
<li>Practice letting go, just like relaxing the grasping or tightening of your body. Whatever comes your way, enjoy it.</li>
<li>Clinging is because we believe we are the centre of the universe and want things the way we like them. </li>
<li>Change your perspective to go beyond just being self-focussed. Focus on others and be compassionate and supportive.</li>
<li>See the beauty in everything around you, the trees, the moon, feeling the amazing universe and appreciating it.</li>
</ol>

How To Develop A No-Clinging Mind

<ul><li><a href="https://zenhabits.net/training/">training </a> </li><li><a href="https://zenhabits.net/books/">books </a> </li><li><a href="https://zenhabits.net/about/">about </a> </li><li><a href="https://zenhabits.net/archives/">Archives </a> </li> </ul>

How to Develop a Mind That Clings to Nothing

It’s said that one of the great patriarchs of the Zen tradition, Hui Neng, was enlightened upon hearing a single verse of the Diamond Sutra (one of the key teachings in Buddhism).

That verse can be translate in various ways, but the key line in it goes something like, “Develop a mind that clings to nothing.”

Imagine having a mind like that — it doesn’t get attached, it doesn’t need things to be a certain way, it doesn’t need people to behave in particular ways. It’s a mind at home everywhere, because it doesn’t need to be anywhere in particular.

All of our difficulties would be eased:

<ul><li>If someone irritates you, it’s because you are attached to a particular way you want them to behave, and when you don’t get that way, you are unhappy. If your mind didn’t cling to what you wanted, you would be fine with how they were acting. In fact, you might have compassion for them, as you could see they are suffering. </li><li>If you are stuck in traffic, or a long line somewhere, you can become bothered when you want your life to be different (to not have traffic or a long line). Your mind is clinging to how it wants things, and doesn’t like not getting its way. </li><li>When someone is upset with you, you can become defensive or angry that they’re acting that way, because you’re clinging to wishing they would treat you a certain way. If you let go of clinging, it wouldn’t excuse their bad behavior — nor would you have to allow yourself to be abused. But you would not have to be upset, you would just protect yourself by not allowing yourself to be abused (if necessary). And again, you might have understanding for their suffering. </li> </ul>

Every difficulty is caused by this clinging: stress when you’re overwhelmed, procrastination when you don’t want to work on something difficult or do uncomfortable exercise, loneliness, shutting your heart down in an argument, overeating, bad financial habits, and much more.

Let’s look at how we’d react in one situation, if we could have a mind of no clinging. Then let’s look at how we might start to develop that no-clinging mind.

Example: Dealing with a Difficult Situation with No-Clinging Mind

Let’s say you have a loved one who is addicted to drugs, and you really want to help them. But you’re stressed about how to help them, about them going down this path, and about whether you’re even able to help.

The stress is caused by clinging — how you want them to behave, wanting things to turn out the way you want them to turn out. You have a loving intention, but at the same time your clinging is causing you some suffering.

Their drug addiction is also caused by clinging. They ran to drugs to get away from their difficulties, which were caused by clinging. They enjoyed the high and found it to be a comfort from their difficulties, and clung to that feeling. Over time, that clinging hardened to addiction, and their clinging causes them to stay addicted. They are suffering, and we can see that and have a genuine wish for it to end (without clinging to needing that outcome to happen).

So seeing all of this, you start to let go. You don’t need them to be a certain way, you just love them. You just show up for them, with acceptance and compassion. You open your heart to them, without needing things to change.

And you offer help, of course. You share ideas for seeking counseling, for meditation, for drug addiction strategies and treatment centers. But you are not attached to them actually doing those things — they are offered lovingly, as a gift.

This is one way a non-clinging mind might deal with a difficult situation. There are many others, but you can see that this non-clinging can be tremendously helpful in any situation.

I’m not going to pretend that I never cling, nor that it’s easy to develop a mind that clings to nothing. This is something I’m still working on, and I’m not attached to having it develop overnight (or ever getting there, really).

To the extent that we practice, it is helpful.

So here’s how I would practice:

<ul><li>Start by just noticing when you are clinging. It’s hard to see at first, but once you start to see, you can notice it all the time. When you don’t like the way your food tastes, that’s clinging. When you need to have your coffee, that’s clinging. When you overeat, procrastinate, get frustrated, lash out, run to your favorite distractions, shut someone out … those are ways of clinging. Just start noticing, without judgment. </li><li>Notice how it feels when you’re clinging. What do you notice about your mind? What do you notice about the sensations in your body? Get curious, and start to fine-tune your attention so that you can notice the smallest details. </li><li>Practice daily meditation, in the morning, for 5-10 minutes for at least a month. Extend it to 10-15 minutes after a month. Notice when you are putting off meditation (clinging to wanting to check your phone), or when you are wanting to get up from your seat before meditation is over, or when you are clinging to anything during the meditation. </li><li>Practice letting go. It’s a kind of relaxing of the tightening of your mind and body. It’s a relaxing of your grasp on how you want things to be. It’s easier when you don’t care that much, so practice in easier situations at first. It’s saying to yourself, “I don’t need things to be my way. I don’t need them to be any way. I’m content either way, because no matter what happens, the universe is freaking amazing.” </li><li>Notice the self-centeredness of clinging. When you are clinging to something, it’s because you are at the center of your universe. You want things to go your way, to meet your desires (or avoid your aversions), to be the way you like it. This is when we put ourselves at the center of everything. This is not judgmental, but just a noticing of perspective. </li><li>Expand your perspective beyond your self-focused view, to get out of the clinging. See the other person’s perspective, understand that they are suffering, understand that in their suffering and clinging, you are alike, you are connected. See that you and all others are interconnected, affecting each other, supporting each other, and to the extent that you can wish for an end to others’ suffering, it benefits you as well. Expand your heart to wish for an end to the clinging and suffering of others, and not worry so much about your own desires and self-protection. This is a helpful thing when it comes to clinging, because when we expand, we no longer need things to be our way. </li><li>See the beauty in everything, the immense, profound awesomeness in every little thing. When we cling to things being one way, we ignore the amazingness of the things around us, because if we saw that amazingness, we wouldn’t need things to be one way. All ways are incredible, in their own way. Appreciating that is helpful. </li> </ul>

This won’t get you all the way, but it gets you a lot closer.

The real way to develop a mind that clings to nothing is to first, continue to let go. Moment after moment, notice the clinging and then let go. Over and over again.

And then to expand yourself beyond your narrow perspective, to see the interconnectedness of all things, to appreciate the beauty in all around us, to not see yourself as separate from everything else but a part of it all, in it together, and fall deeply in love with that fact.

Previous post: <a href="https://zenhabits.net/beautiful/">Beautiful Practice Ground: The Secret to Training Your Mind </a>

Next post: <a href="https://zenhabits.net/march-challenge/">The March Challenge: One Small Change, One Big Impact </a>

Life-changing training programs and live experiences

Transformation, one change at a time

Fall in love with uncertainty

6-month mastermind and Costa Rica intensive

<ul><li><a href="https://twitter.com/zen_habits">Twitter </a> </li><li><a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/OfficialZenHabits/">Facebook </a> </li><li><a href="https://www.patreon.com/zenhabits">Patreon </a> </li> </ul>

<ul><li><a href="https://zenhabits.net/uncopyright/">Uncopyright </a> </li> </ul>

How to Develop a Mind That Clings to Nothing - zen habits

Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a Swiss Enlightenment philosopher who argued passionately for democracy, equality, liberty and supporting the common good.
Rousseau was born in Geneva in 1712. He wrote several major works on politics, education, music and botany. But his controversial ideas made him many enemies, forcing him to flee France, Switzerland, and Prussia in turn. His ideas on education, toleration, state sovereignty, democracy, liberty and equality remain very influential.

Philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Jean-Jacques Rousseau speculated about what the world was like before societies were created. It was important for political philosophers as it could be used to explain the motivation for creating and supporting a state.
Rousseau suggested that the state of nature was a morally neutral and peaceful condition in which individuals were self-sufficient, fairly solitary by choice, and sympathetic to others. Only when they move into society, human nature becomes corrupted.

The State of Nature

Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that human nature only becomes corrupted after we move into society.
<ul>
<li>He thought problems like theft could only be problems after society formed.</li>
<li>He argues that art and science haven&#39;t improved most people&#39;s moral fibre.</li>
<li>He thought private property encouraged greed and egotism. He believed &quot;you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.&quot;</li>
</ul>

Questioning If Society Provides Anything Beneficial

If the state of nature is so pleasant and people in it so moral, why would anybody create a society or join up with one?
Jean-Jacques Rousseau suggested this natural evolution is the result of the need for individuals to cooperate. However, forming societies takes away the individual&#39;s freedom and protects the inequalities that lead rulers and people into vice. Rousseau&#39;s solution was to create a social contract that could enable all members of society to follow their own will while living in a society.

The Social Contract Theory

The general will is the key to Rousseau&#39;s social contract theory. He stated that any legitimate state must be based on the general will. All laws and actions the state undertakes must be in accordance with it.
The general will is the will of the sum of individual wills. In principle, a person can follow it and still follow their will, since they helped to form it. Individually, a person understands that the greater good is also in their interest, resulting in no friction between their interests and the society&#39;s interests.

The General Will

The shift between being able to follow the individual will and the general will is not so easy to establish.
Finding the general will is based on three approaches.
<ul>
<li>A highly democratic model is where citizenry discusses legislation at town hall meetings. Magistrates would be elected and be duty-bound to execute the legislation as determined by the people.</li>
<li>Another model is that a &quot;legislator&quot; (someone who knows what good laws and morals are) can show people the general will by either guiding discussion or helping people identify with the common cause.</li>
<li>A third is a hybrid of the two.</li>
</ul>

The Individual Will And The General Will

The positive:
<ul>
<li>The general will could ensure an equal society.</li>
<li>Major inequalities would be absent.</li>
<li>It would be a small society, as Jean-Jacques Rousseau feared a large country would not find the common cause.</li>
<li>People would be able to act freely within a sphere decided by the general will.</li>
</ul>
The negative:
<ul>
<li>Since the general will can be applied to almost any facet of life, the people, or legislator, may decide to create an oppressive society.</li>
<li>Individual rights only exist as far as the general will thinks they should.</li>
<li>If your interests differ from the general will, you can be dragged along.</li>
</ul>

Living In A Rousseauan Society

<ul>
<li>In practice, the Quakers got the closest to a Jean-Jacques Rousseauan society even though it is a religious notion unrelated to Rousseau&#39;s philosophy. The Quakers seek God&#39;s will through discussion and end up in agreement on what it is.</li>
<li>The French Revolution can be viewed as an attempt to apply Rousseau&#39;s ideas. His ideas inspired Maximilien Robespierre. Robespierre agreed with the idea that the general will was the basis for state legitimacy and that people could be forced to be free by any means necessary.</li>
</ul>

Examples Of A Near Rousseauan Society

As with most political philosophy, the real concern is how his big ideas are considered in our society.
Whenever we discuss topics like what it takes for a government to be legitimate, if modern society is good for us, or what we think should be subject to a vote, we draw from the same topics Rousseau considered.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Ideas Can Broaden Our Thinking

The champion of local democracy has also been the justification for dictatorship and terror. Here is an intro to Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his bold philosophy.

The philosopher who praised a simple life and inspired the worst of the French Revolution.

A portrait of Rousseau by Maurice Quentin de La Tour.

<ul><li>Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a Swiss Enlightenment philosopher with some radical ideas. </li><li>He argued passionately for democracy, equality, liberty, and supporting the common good by any means necessary. </li><li>While his ideas may be utopian (or dystopian), they are thought-provoking and can inform modern discourse. </li> </ul>

Modern political debates often ask how much democracy we should have and what should, and should not, be subject to a vote. Whenever we discuss these issues, we stumble on the famously tricky philosophy of <a dir="ltr" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau" rel="noopener noreferrer">Jean-Jacques Rousseau </a>, who argued nearly three hundred years ago for democracy, equality, and the greater good.

Born in Geneva in 1712, Rousseau wrote his first major essay while living in Paris in 1750. He went on to write several major works on politics, education, music, and even botany. However, his controversial ideas made him many enemies, and he was forced to flee France, Switzerland, and Prussia in turn. He died in France in 1778 after many years of wandering and being fairly convinced of a vast conspiracy against <a dir="ltr" href="https://iep.utm.edu/rousseau/#SH1a">him </a>.

His ideas on education, toleration, state sovereignty, democracy, liberty, and equality have proven extremely influential. Here, we'll dive into some of his big ideas and take a look at attempts to put them into practice.

Like other philosophers at the time, Rousseau was very concerned with what the world was like before the creation of societies. This was very important for political philosophers because it could be used to explain the motivation for creating and supporting a state.

If you, like the philosopher Thomas Hobbes, thought that a life in the "<a dir="ltr" href="https://www.the-philosophy.com/hobbes-vs-locke" rel="noopener noreferrer">state of nature </a>" was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short," you're probably in favor of anything that keeps the state of nature at bay, no matter how tyrannical or brutal. This is why Hobbes supported a ruler with absolute power, typically a monarch.

<a dir="ltr" href="https://www.the-philosophy.com/rousseau-philosophy-summary" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rousseau </a>, however, went the other way. He suggested that the state of nature wasn't all that bad, proposing that the people in it were self-sufficient, fairly solitary by choice, sympathetic to others, and peaceful. With nothing to fight over, they don't fight much. Since morality hasn't been invented yet, they are innocent and incapable of being malicious.

Importantly, people in the state of nature are free in that they can follow their own will all the time, and equal — the various sources of inequality haven't been invented yet.

He argues that it is only when we move into society that human nature becomes corrupted, and many of the vices and evils we know all too well can flourish. He thought that many of the problems society claims to solve, like protection from theft, can only be problems after society, and thus the notion of private property, already exists.

Beyond this, he asks us if the things society provides us are really beneficial in the first place.

In his first significant work, "<a dir="ltr" href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/46333/46333-h/46333-h.htm" rel="noopener noreferrer">Discourse on the Arts and Sciences </a>," Rousseau argues that art and science haven't improved most people's moral fiber — a shocking position to hold in Enlightenment-era France. Instead, he suggests that they arose from vices such as vanity and only serve to continue the degradation of morals. Given how many civilizations seem to have reached decadent heights before being brought down by their barbarous neighbors, he questions how desirable they are for other purposes as well.

Private property, another concept made possible by society, earned Rousseau's ire as an institution that encouraged greed and egotism. He expresses how terrible he supposes the invention of private property was in this striking paragraph from the "<a dir="ltr" href="http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/11136/pg11136.html" rel="noopener noreferrer">Discourse </a><a dir="ltr" href="http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/11136/pg11136.html" rel="noopener noreferrer">On The Origin And The Foundation Of The Inequality Among Mankind </a>":

"The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody!"

Now, you might be wondering why, if the state of nature is so pleasant and people in it so moral and decent, anybody would ever create a society or join up with one. Rousseau suggests this is a natural evolution caused by the need for individuals to cooperate. Eventually, people will figure out things like agriculture and industry, which require working with your neighbors or creating rules for living near them.

In fear of worst-case scenarios, Rousseau thought that people agreed to societies dedicated to protecting them from threats, real or imagined, that then took away their freedom and protected the inequalities that further led everybody, including the rulers, into vice. He saw this as a cure nearly so bad as the disease, leading him to lament that "Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains."

His alternative is to create a <a dir="ltr" href="https://www.thoughtco.com/social-contract-in-politics-105424" rel="noopener noreferrer">social contract </a>that will allow all members of the society to be as free as they were in the state of nature, that is, to enable them to follow their own will all the time while still living in a society. It will remove the unnatural inequalities that degrade both the rich and the poor. It will ensure that everyone is equal before the law that they create.

To achieve this, he formulates one of the more radically democratic systems of government ever to achieve widespread consideration.

The key to Rousseau's social contract theory, and his biggest idea, is a take on the "<a dir="ltr" href="https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/General_will" rel="noopener noreferrer">general will </a>." While he wasn't the first philosopher to talk about it, his conception of it is the most famous and consequential. He posits that any legitimate state must be based on the general will, which is the fundamental source of sovereignty. All laws and actions the state undertakes must be in line with it.

It is akin to the notion of popular sovereignty, with a few differences.

The general will is the will of the entire body politic, which exists independently of the will of any one member or any group of people that comprise it. It is also not just the sum of individual wills. Because an individual contributes to the general will as a citizen, the general will is, at least partly, their will. It is a universal, generally applied concept and, when done correctly, will be used to create laws that apply to everyone in the community equally.

In principle, a person can follow it and still be following their will, since they helped to forge it. In the ideal case, a person fully understands that the greater good is also in their interest and there is no friction between their interests and that of the community. This is how Rousseau supposes people can be as free in society as they are in nature. However, if the shift between being able to follow the individual will and the general will is one that is quite so easy to make is a point many philosophers have raised.

How we find what the general will even is creates another problem. There are generally two approaches to figuring it out, with a third splitting the <a dir="ltr" href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rousseau/" rel="noopener noreferrer">difference </a>. All of these interpretations are supported by Rousseau's writing — his style is famously contradictory even when it is working towards a clear point.

The first is a highly democratic model, featuring the citizenry discussing legislation at town hall meetings every time an issue comes up. While magistrates would exist to run the government day by day, they would be elected and duty-bound to follow the will of the people as determined by the debate and votes at these meetings. Minorities will exist, but their participation in the debate assures that they helped forge the general will and that the resulting laws will be good for them, too.

Going the other way, the general will could be a somewhat transcendental thing that just exists for every political group that only some well-educated people can grasp without the help of well-made social institutions.

Rousseau suggests that a "legislator," a person who knows what good laws and morals are, can help people understand what the general will is by either guiding discussion and putting the vague ideas of the people into politically actionable terms, or by assisting individuals to identify with the common cause that is the general will if they are incapable of doing it themselves. In that case, the magistrates would still follow the general will, but it wouldn't be quite as democratically determined.

The hybrid of the two is a procedural model, where citizen-legislators discuss issues and realize why the common good is also their own good when making law.

As an example, imagine a neighborhood association's members discussing what trees to plant. Some of them will realize that their preferred choice of tree is a poor choice when they learn that most of their neighbors are allergic to it. After further discussion, not only do they agree to the new option, they will also end up agreeing that the new choice is in their best interest. They'll be happier when their neighbors aren't grouchy from allergies. The voters want what the community wants because what they want has shifted.

The general will is also very expansive, and a government based on it can do many things that others couldn't justify. While this means a Rousseauan government can do many good things others can't, it also means that it can be uniquely oppressive. The general will could call for abolishing or redistributing private property, press censorship, or mandatory attendance at morality plays among a variety of other harsh mandates. In principle, it could even call for ending democracy if that is in the best interests of the whole.

Whatever it calls for, it does so on everybody equally and because they called for it.

What would living in a Rousseauan society look like?

On the bright side, since the general will has to be applied universally and generally, the society that forms along these lines will be very equal, with the law applying to all citizens in the same way. Major inequalities would be swept away, and there would likely be a significant democratic element to the government, depending on how the people decided to organize the state. It would probably be a small society, as Rousseau feared that a large country would not find the common cause he thought was so important.

The people themselves would share a common cause, be highly educated in how to carry out their various civic duties properly. They would enjoy being able to act freely within a sphere decided by the general will.

However, since the general will can be applied to nearly any facet of life, the people, or the legislator in some cases, may decide to create a very oppressive society devoid of things they don't like or think will lead to vice.

Individual rights only exist as far as the sovereign, the general will, thinks they should. While it is probable that the application of all laws equally means that everyone would have to choose to make it oppressive for themselves; that remains a risk that could come to pass. Democracy might also go out the window, and a monarch who follows the general will could be appointed.

Furthermore, Rousseau suggests that people can be "forced to be free," so even if your interests are quite different from those of the general will, you can be dragged along with it. Some later philosophers, such as Jacob Talmon and Isaiah Berlin, have thus suggested that a Rousseauan state would be a "totalitarian democracy" with the individual always being subject to the whims of the majority or whoever claims to speak for the general will.

Despite the extensive reach that the Rousseauan state would have, he does argue that some limits on what a sovereign can do exist.

Most notably, he expressly states that people have the right to their religion alongside a civic faith that promotes solidarity, that pluralism is inevitable, and that a variety of religions can improve morals. He suggests that toleration should be held sacred. He does not extend this toleration to atheists, however, who he suggests be exiled.

This all sounds a bit unrealistic in any case. Did anybody try to run anything like this?

According to Professor <a dir="ltr" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5soKkx-RZow" rel="noopener noreferrer">Charles Anderson </a>, the decision-making process of the Quakers during their meetings is very similar to, but not quite the same as, the hybrid model of the general will. The Quakers seek God's will through discussion and end up in agreement on what that is and the wisdom of following it. In <a dir="ltr" href="https://quaker.org/decision-making/" rel="noopener noreferrer">practice </a>, it may be as close to that model as anyone has ever gotten, even if it is a religious notion unrelated to Rousseau's philosophy.

On a larger scale, The French Revolution can be viewed as an attempt to apply Rousseau's ideas in a situation where they were never going to work. Famed revolutionary Maximilien Robespierre studied many philosophers, but Rousseau's ideas were the ones that most inspired him. It is <a dir="ltr" href="https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/robespierre-terror.asp" rel="noopener noreferrer">said </a>that he slept with his copy of "The Social Contract."

The revolutionaries' Cult of the Supreme Being, a state religion based around a single deistic goddess, is based on Rousseau's idea of civil religion. Both centered on the existence of a deity, an afterlife, and the need for virtue, patriotism, and social solidarity. Robespierre, like his favorite philosopher, thought such a belief system was vital in a republic.

Additionally, Robespierre strongly agreed with the idea that the general will was the basis for state legitimacy and that people could be "forced to be free" by any means necessary if they weren't going along with it. Those who were actively fighting it, namely royalists, could be done away with as a result. This is part of the reason why Rousseau's <a dir="ltr" href="https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/robespierre-terror.asp" rel="noopener noreferrer">ideas </a>often get blamed for <a dir="ltr" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror" rel="noopener noreferrer">The </a><a dir="ltr" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror" rel="noopener noreferrer">Terror </a>.

On a more practical and mundane note, Rousseau was asked to submit ideas for the new constitution being written in Poland-Lithuania. His <a dir="ltr" href="http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/eng/Considerations_on_the_Government_of_Poland" rel="noopener noreferrer">suggestions </a>were conservative compared to his previous work, suggesting he grasped that his ideas could not be instituted in such a large state or that his previously hard-line stances had softened. Among his ideas that made it in were a federalized system of governance and a representative legislature. He encouraged the Poles to adopt a gradualist system of reform.

This may shed light on what he might have thought of his disciples leading the French Revolution, which occurred after his death.

As with most political philosophy, the real question may be how his big ideas are discussed in our society rather than on if anybody tried to follow his books to the letter. Other philosophers with great influence, like Kant, Marx, and Rawls, all sighted Rousseau as an influence.

Outside of academia, every time we discuss certain topics, like what it takes for a government to be legitimate, if modern society is good for us, or what we think should and should not be subject to a vote; we stumble across topics Rousseau considered and can benefit from his insights.

While a purely Rousseauan society probably isn't practical for many reasons, his writings continue to inform debate in our society, despite their often contradictory and confusing nature.

Rousseau explained: What his philosophy means for us

&quot;Yesterday is gone. Tomorrow has not yet come. We have only today. Let us begin.&quot;

Quote

&quot;We all live with the objective of being happy; our lives are all different and yet the same.&quot;

“Better to do something imperfectly than to do nothing flawlessly.”

&quot;We turn not older with years but newer every day.&quot;

&quot;Some of the secret joys of living are not found by rushing from point A to point B, but by inventing some imaginary letters along the way.&quot;

&quot;Never regret. If it&#39;s good, it&#39;s wonderful. If it&#39;s bad, it&#39;s experience.&quot;

“Being happy doesn&#39;t mean that everything is perfect. It means that you&#39;ve decided to look beyond the imperfections.”

&quot;Freedom is man&#39;s capacity to take a hand in his own development. It is our capacity to mold ourselves.&quot;

&quot;He who smiles rather than rages is always the stronger.&quot;

&quot;A child&#39;s life is like a piece of paper on which every passerby leaves a mark.&quot;

This hand-picked group of inspiring quotes and related resources can change your perspective on stress, provide motivation, and help you change your experience.

Inspiring Words to Change Your Perspective on Self Care

<ul><li><a data-href="https://www.facebook.com/dialog/share?app_id=1107071669402313&amp;display=popup&amp;href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thoughtco.com%2Finspiring-quotes-for-stress-relief-3145227%3Futm_source%3Dfacebook%26utm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_campaign%3Dshareurlbuttons&amp;redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thoughtco.com%2FfacebookShareRedirect.htm" data-network="facebook" dir="ltr" title="Share on Facebook">Share </a> </li><li><a data-href="https://share.flipboard.com/bookmarklet/popout?v=2&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thoughtco.com%2Finspiring-quotes-for-stress-relief-3145227%3Futm_source%3Dflipit%26utm_medium%3Dweb%26utm_campaign%3Dwidgets%26utm_content%3Dwww.thoughtco.com&amp;title=10+Great+Quotes%2C+And+Ways+To+Live+Them&amp;t=1597785782226" data-network="flipboard" dir="ltr" title="Share on Flipboard">Flipboard </a> </li><li><a data-href="https://www.thoughtco.com/inspiring-quotes-for-stress-relief-3145227?utm_source=emailshare&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_campaign=shareurlbuttons" data-network="emailshare" dir="ltr" title="Email this article">Email </a> </li> </ul>

Often, a shift in perspective can help relieve the stress of a variety of situations; that's where inspiring quotes can be not just fun to read, but great for <a data-component="link" data-ordinal="1" data-source="inlineLink" data-type="internalLink" dir="ltr" href="https://www.thoughtco.com/ways-to-destress-in-college-793534">stress management </a>as well. The following group of inspirational quotes goes a step further — each quote is followed up with an explanation on how the concept relates to stress, and a link is supplied to supply you with additional information to take things a step further. The result is a collection of inspiring quotes you can share, and an increase in optimism and motivation as well.

Calming and Reflective Quotes from Famous Folks

Being fully present today is not only a great way to maximize your success, but it's a very effective strategy for relieving stress as well. If you struggle with anxiety and rumination, try mindfulness.

While different specific things may lead to happiness for each of us, we all tend to respond to the same basic elements, according to <a data-component="link" data-ordinal="1" data-source="inlineLink" data-type="internalLink" dir="ltr" href="https://www.thoughtco.com/positive-psychology-4777735">positive psychology </a>research. Here's what makes most people happy — what specific things make you happy?

Perhaps surprisingly, perfectionists can be less productive because the intense focus on perfection can lead to <a data-component="link" data-ordinal="1" data-source="inlineLink" data-type="internalLink" dir="ltr" href="https://www.thoughtco.com/procrastination-and-homework-1857570">procrastination </a>(or missing deadlines entirely!) and other success-sabotaging side-effects. Do you have perfectionistic tendencies? If so, what might you do today to allow yourself to enjoy a successfully imperfect day?

This is a great quote to remember each birthday, or on days when you're feeling your best times just may be behind you. On birthdays (and on ho-hum days when you need a boost) try creating and adding to a "<a data-component="link" data-ordinal="1" data-source="inlineLink" data-type="internalLink" dir="ltr" href="https://www.thoughtco.com/college-bucket-list-793505">bucket list </a>" of great things you still intend to do. What might be on your bucket list?

.css-d7z4j9{font-family:'Source Sans Pro',sans-serif;font-size:2rem;line-height:2.5rem;letter-spacing:-0.125%;font-weight:700;}The Right Amount of Worry