Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of manâ€”state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
I find the first sentence very concise and accurate.
This old saying (as do many others) still rings true today and I imagine it always will be relevant. Most people are never fully satisfied with their own situation, and always think others have it better. Sometimes it is true, other times it is not, and sometimes it is just an argument of semantics. If you let it, this thought process can lead you to a depressed state or it can light a fire under your ass and push you forward. It’s a fine line to walk.
While reading an article and some of the user comments today, a commenter offered a few words to another responder that helped put my professional thinking back into a more positive perspective.
You are effective at all levels of the stack, and can build entire webapps (given enough time) by yourself, and you’re complaining about it?
The reason this little response hit so close to home is because I’ve grown into the “jack of all trades” role. I didn’t start out there, I was a “master at one” with a few other skills that were required and hard to find. I was worried about loosening the strangle-hold grip I had on my main skill-set. I thought my “master” level of ability would disappear and I would be left with a bunch of knowledge across a wide array of skills, and not really mastering any of them.
Though this can lead to a career killer, it didn’t for me. I’m able to stay relevant, I’ve learned so much more than I ever would have and it helps me to bring many different assets to the table that prove to be very beneficial to all involved. However, I do still try to concentrate on certain aspects of my skill-sets so I can say I am a master of at least one. And that quote above helps me to stay positive, something that is hard to do in today’s world, yet is so crucial.
Your mileage may vary.
I’m pretty sure I just ran across the most comma laden 52 words in history.
WHEN HE WAS 12 YEARS OLD, PHILIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN saw a local production of “All My Sons” near his home in Rochester, and it was, for him, one of those rare, life-altering events where, at an impressionable age, you catch a glimpse of another reality, a world that you never imagined possible.
Good god. I appreciate Philip Seymour Hoffman as an actor, but this sentence just lacks all kinds of integrity even though it puts Hoffman in a nice light.
Fine job, indeed. I’m no grammer-nazi but I just couldn’t look past this first sentence. The entire first sentence read to me like it was William Shatner speaking and the commas were used for pauses.