Making #love and ...
63.4K views | +88 today
Scooped by Ricard Lloria
onto Making #love and making personal #branding #leadership!

#liderazgo #inteligenciasocial¿Usted es un líder con inteligencia social? | Páginas Doradas Industriales y de Negocios

#liderazgo #inteligenciasocial¿Usted es un líder con inteligencia social? | Páginas Doradas Industriales y de Negocios | Making #love and making personal #branding #leadership |
Este talento es vital para lograr sus metas. Adquiera nuevas habilidades e impulse su proyección dentro y fuera de su empresa.
No comment yet.

From around the web

Making #love and making personal #branding #leadership
Social media making love, aptitudes and personal branding.May be you can find in there some spanish links.
Curated by Ricard Lloria
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Ricard Lloria from Business change!

Don't Be So Sure | Mindful

Don't Be So Sure | Mindful | Making #love and making personal #branding #leadership |

Margaret Wheatley explains why now, more than ever, we need a curiosity and a willingness to sit in uncertainty.

Via David Hain
David Hain's curator insight, November 22, 8:40 AM
Get comfy with VUCA!
Rescooped by Ricard Lloria from Leadership!

How to Handle Loneliness in #Leadership

How to Handle Loneliness in #Leadership | Making #love and making personal #branding #leadership |
If you've ever felt loneliness in leadership, welcome to the club. Here's why it's not always a problem you need to solve.

Via Anne Leong
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Ricard Lloria from LeadershipABC!

The Wisdom of Peter Drucker from A to Z

The Wisdom of Peter Drucker from A to Z | Making #love and making personal #branding #leadership |

Known widely as the father of management, Peter Drucker formulated many concepts about business that we now take for granted. Here is an overview of Drucker's contributions, from A to Z.


Via Kenneth Mikkelsen
James Schreier's curator insight, October 27, 9:16 AM

What wisdom -- at the time -- and now timeless!

Rescooped by Ricard Lloria from LeadershipABC!

The Leaders Who Ruined Africa, and the Generation Who Can Fix It

The Leaders Who Ruined Africa, and the Generation Who Can Fix It | Making #love and making personal #branding #leadership |

Before he hit eighteen, Fred Swaniker had lived in Ghana, Gambia, Botswana and Zimbabwe. What he learned from a childhood across Africa was that while good leaders can't make much of a difference in societies with strong institutions, in countries with weak structures, leaders could make or break a country. In a passionate talk the entrepreneur and TED Fellow looks at different generations of African leaders and imagines how to develop the leadership of the future.

Via Kenneth Mikkelsen
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Ricard Lloria from Leadership!

How Great Leaders Make a FUSS About What Works

How Great Leaders Make a FUSS About What Works | Making #love and making personal #branding #leadership |
Why are we always so focused on what’s NOT right? It’s partly human nature, partly habit, and we are just drawn to solve the biggest breakdowns in the business. The problem is that when we do this, we neglect to focus on what actually is workin [...]

Via Anne Leong
Betty Skeet's curator insight, November 22, 8:33 AM

Focusing in what works instead of in what doesn't work

Rescooped by Ricard Lloria from Organisation Development!

Three Key Issues The Drucker Forum Should Address

Three Key Issues The Drucker Forum Should Address | Making #love and making personal #branding #leadership |
“We have arrived at a turning point,” says the launch abstract of the Global Peter Drucker Forum 2014. “Either the world will embark on a route towards long-term growth and prosperity, or we will manage our way to economic decline.” We believe the three most important issues that the Forum should address are:

Should firms make the shift from the goal of maximizing shareholder value as measured by the current stock price to a principal focus on adding value to those for whom the work is being done?
Should organizations make the shift from the practices of hierarchical bureaucracy to the collaborative leadership and management practices of the Creative Economy?
Should organizations make a shift from metrics that reflect narrow financial goals to metrics that reflect contributions to prosperity of individuals, organizations and society, for achieving both purpose and profit?

Via David Hain
David Hain's curator insight, November 14, 1:44 AM

Time for human centred and co-created management models and operating systems?  Hope so...

Scooped by Ricard Lloria!

The Power of Self Reflection

Sometimes, you need to just stop and ponder. Here are some insights to get you started.
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Ricard Lloria from Gestión organización 2.0!

#RRHH Pactar con el día a día o el #managament de lo cotidiano

#RRHH Pactar con el día a día o el #managament de lo cotidiano | Making #love and making personal #branding #leadership |

Hay que pactar con el día a día. Básicamente hay que pactar con nosotros mismos y no dejar que las urgencias se nos coman la estrategia. Evitar que la procrastinación  se apodere de nosotros. Intentar que nuestras inercias no se orienten a la pura táctica. Dejar espacio a la estrategia es no perder de vista la visión que queremos alcanzar cuando construimos nuestra agenda. En medio de la batalla es cuando no hay que perder la visión. [...]

Via Jordi Carrió Jamilà
Jordi Carrió Jamilà's curator insight, September 5, 1:34 PM

La gestión de tiempo el mal de muchos 

Scooped by Ricard Lloria!

#RRHH #Redessociales LO URGENTE Y LO IMPORTANTE por @ecofaca

#RRHH #Redessociales LO URGENTE Y LO IMPORTANTE por  @ecofaca | Making #love and making personal #branding #leadership |
Las redes sociales aumentan la difusión de las ideas, pero generan un cambio de mentalidad en la vida que no siempre estamos dispuestos a aceptar.
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Ricard Lloria from Coaching- Desarrollo Personal y Profesional!

#RRHH Seis cosas sorprendentes sobre los introvertidos en el lugar de trabajo

#RRHH Seis cosas sorprendentes sobre los introvertidos en el lugar de trabajo | Making #love and making personal #branding #leadership |
¿Tienes la extroversión característica de un líder nato? Si es que no, no te preocupes, porque los profesionales introvertidos también pueden ser grandes empresarios. Así lo demuestra el investigador Brian Little, que ha analizado las capacidades profesionales de las personas más reservadas, y ha resumido sus resultados en seis conclusiones.

Via Maite Finch
No comment yet.
Scooped by Ricard Lloria!

#Branding #marpersonal Personal Branders: tres razones para contratarlos by @guillemrecolons

#Branding #marpersonal Personal Branders: tres razones para contratarlos by @guillemrecolons | Making #love and making personal #branding #leadership |
Dicen por ahí que todo entrenador necesita un entrenador. Aunque seas de los que prefiere autogestionarse, no estaría mal que tengas en cuenta tres...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Ricard Lloria!

#Coaching #Psicología Conviviendo con la IRA. por @sherpapersonal

#Coaching #Psicología Conviviendo con la IRA. por @sherpapersonal | Making #love and making personal #branding #leadership |
“La ira es como el fuego, no se puede apagar sino al primer chispazo. Después es tarde”. G. Papini. Uno de los mayores problemas con el que todos, convivimos, es la IRA. Nos levantamos y oímos a lo...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Ricard Lloria from Liderazgo, equipos, y marca personal!

Signs That You’re a Micromanager

Signs That You’re a Micromanager | Making #love and making personal #branding #leadership |
And four strategies to help you reform.

Via Maite Finch
Ivon Prefontaine's curator insight, November 21, 11:37 AM

I found School full of micro-managing. I think there is a tendency to let this flow down into the classroom where teachers unwittingly become micro-managers. Awareness helps us overcome it.



Scooped by Ricard Lloria!

The Five Strategic Rules of #Leadership Clarity

The Five Strategic Rules of #Leadership Clarity | Making #love and making personal #branding #leadership |

Chair, Organizational Development, N2Growth.

In today’s leadership and strategy methodologies, leaders and organizations need to have five strategic rules of leadership clarity present in order to achieve greater outcomes of effort within their organizational designs. And, when they are successful, everyone will be able to manage complexity

In today’s leadership and strategy methodologies, leaders and organizations need to have five strategic rules of leadership clarity present in order to achieve greater outcomes of effort within their organizational designs. And, when they are successful, everyone will be able to manage complexity – the new complexities of business – without becoming complicated. The five strategic rules of leadership clarity are outlined as:

Understand what others do; acknowledge their value.Identify the Poker’s Bluff; disrupt existing conditions.Increase the quality of empowerment; mobilize to maximize effort – ideate.Reward reciprocity; do the right things to get the right things done – timely.Ensure performance gaps are closed within the new complexities of business; ADMIT your truths.- See more at:
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Ricard Lloria from LeadershipABC!

The Art of Self-Renewal: A Timeless 1964 Field Guide to Keeping Your Company and Your Soul Vibrantly Alive

The Art of Self-Renewal: A Timeless 1964 Field Guide to Keeping Your Company and Your Soul Vibrantly Alive | Making #love and making personal #branding #leadership |

Self-Renewal: The Individual and the Innovative Society is a forgotten book of extraordinary prescience and warm wisdom, which rings even timelier today. It’s a must-read as much for entrepreneurs and leaders seeking to infuse their organizations with ongoing vitality as it is for all of us as individuals, on our private trajectories of self-transcendence and personal growth.

Via Kenneth Mikkelsen
Tom Wojick's curator insight, October 23, 8:22 AM

This is one book everyone needs to read not tomorrow - Today! 

David Hain's curator insight, October 23, 10:08 AM

"The renewal of societies and organizations can go forward only if someone cares. Apathy and lowered motivation are the most widely noted characteristics of a civilization on the downward path." ~ John W. Gardner

Rescooped by Ricard Lloria from LeadershipABC!

David Foster Wallace on #Leadership

David Foster Wallace on #Leadership | Making #love and making personal #branding #leadership |

“A leader’s real ‘authority’ is a power you voluntarily give him, and you grant him this authority not with resentment or resignation but happily.”


In a culture that calls pop culture celebrities “thought-leaders” and looks for “leadership ability” in kindergartners, we’re left wondering what leadership actually means and questioning what makes a great leader.

The best definition of the essence beneath the leadership buzzword comes from David Foster Wallace. 


Via Kenneth Mikkelsen
Kenneth Mikkelsen's curator insight, October 26, 12:32 PM

This is a beautifully curated story by Maria Popova on Brain Pickings.

Also discover Debbie Millman's felt-on-felt typographic art piece and reading that captures the wisdom from Wallace’s essay “Up, Simba: Seven Days on the Trail of an Anticandidate."

Rescooped by Ricard Lloria from LeadershipABC!

Bureaucracy Must Die

Bureaucracy Must Die | Making #love and making personal #branding #leadership |

Most of us grew up in and around organizations that fit a common template. Strategy gets set at the top. Power trickles down. Big leaders appoint little leaders. Individuals compete for promotion. Compensation correlates with rank. Tasks are assigned. Managers assess performance. Rules tightly circumscribe discretion. This is the recipe for “bureaucracy,” the 150-year old mashup of military command structures and industrial engineering that constitutes the operating system for virtually every large-scale organization on the planet.

Via Kenneth Mikkelsen
Kenneth Mikkelsen's curator insight, November 11, 3:53 PM

When the responsibility for setting strategy and direction is concentrated at the top of an organization, a few senior leaders become the gatekeepers of change. If they are unwilling to adapt and learn, the entire organization stalls. When a company misses the future, the fault invariably lies with a small cadre of seasoned executives who failed to write off their depreciating intellectual capital.

Edward Pierce's curator insight, November 12, 9:50 AM

when looking at how technology has impacted modern business, we MUST think differently on how we structure organizations

Rescooped by Ricard Lloria from LeadershipABC!

Clay Christensen on Peter Drucker

Clay Christensen on Peter Drucker | Making #love and making personal #branding #leadership |

Managers today know that their enterprises depend on frequent, important innovation, but they lack good frameworks and tools to act on that recognition. Management science as it is taught today and embedded in firms’ structures and processes still assumes that the introduction of a new offering – let alone a new business model – is the exceptional event and not the norm.


Via Kenneth Mikkelsen
Kenneth Mikkelsen's curator insight, November 11, 3:47 PM

Great points by Clayton Christensen: 

My observation of what’s happened is that, today, the people convened for that senior executive meeting all have different languages that they speak. One speaks finance, one speaks HR, one speaks operations, and so on. They have discovered that, if they translate all of their initiatives into numbers, then everyone can talk about them.

When you put the agenda together, all of the options that people need to decide upon are translated into numbers. And so the evaluation of the ideas quickly turns into a review of how good the numbers look, as opposed to being a substantive discussion about things that are not known.

The fork in the road for managers is this: if finance, which has been the kingpin for the last fifty years, is no longer the kingpin, what will be? The only viable alternative is talent, so that managers must learn better how to help people become more capable.

David Hain's curator insight, November 22, 5:04 AM

One of today's business gurus on another.  Double bubble!

Sandeep Gautam's curator insight, Today, 12:51 AM

Talent (or people focus) will replace numbers (or financial focus) in the new lingua frnca of the executives.

Rescooped by Ricard Lloria from Organisation Development!

#HR #RRHH 13 Scary Statistics on Employee #Engagement

#HR #RRHH 13 Scary Statistics on Employee #Engagement | Making #love and making personal #branding #leadership |
The infographic that we put together has some pretty shocking statistics in it, but there are a few common themes. Employees feel overworked, overwhelmed, and they don’t like what they do. Companies are noticing it, with 75% of them saying they can’t attract the right talent, and 83% of them feeling that their employer brand isn’t compelling. Companies that want to fix this need to be smart, and patient. This doesn’t happen overnight, but like I mentioned, it’s easy to do. Being patient might be the hardest thing for companies, and I understand how frustrating it can be not to see results right away, but it’s important that you invest in this, because the ROI of employee engagement is huge.

Here are 4 simple (and free) things you can do to get that passion back into employees. These are all based on research from Deloitte.

Via David Hain
Sandeep Gautam's curator insight, Today, 12:59 AM

The widespread problem of employee management and how small steps can address the same.

Rescooped by Ricard Lloria from Effective Education!

Leo Tolstoy on Finding Meaning in a Meaningless World

Leo Tolstoy on Finding Meaning in a Meaningless World | Making #love and making personal #branding #leadership |
For man to be able to live he must either not see the infinite, or have such an explanation of the meaning of life as will connect the finite with the infinite.”

Shortly after turning fifty, Leo Tolstoy succumbed to a profound spiritual crisis. With his greatest works behind him, he found his sense of purpose dwindling as his celebrity and public acclaim billowed, sinking into a state of deep depression and melancholia despite having a large estate, good health for his age, a wife who had born him fourteen children, and the promise of eternal literary fame. On the brink of suicide, he made one last grasp at light amidst the darkness of his existence, turning to the world’s great religious and philosophical traditions for answers to the age-old question regarding the meaning of life. In 1879, a decade after War and Peace and two years after Anna Karenina, and a decade before he set out to synthesize these philosophical findings in his Calendar of Wisdom, Tolstoy channeled the existential catastrophe of his inner life in A Confession (public library) — an autobiographical memoir of extraordinary candor and emotional intensity, which also gave us Tolstoy’s prescient meditation on money, fame, and writing for the wrong reasons.

He likens the progression of his depression to a serious physical illness — a parallel modern science is rendering increasingly appropriate. Tolstoy writes:

Then occurred what happens to everyone sickening with a mortal internal disease. At first trivial signs of indisposition appear to which the sick man pays no attention; then these signs reappear more and more often and merge into one uninterrupted period of suffering. The suffering increases, and before the sick man can look round, what he took for a mere indisposition has already become more important to him than anything else in the world — it is death!

The classic symptoms of anhedonia engulfed him — he lost passion for his work and came to dismiss as meaningless the eternal fame he had once dreamt of. He even ceased to go out shooting with his gun in fear that he might be too tempted to take his own life. Though he didn’t acknowledge a “someone” in the sense of a creator, he came to feel that his life was a joke that someone had played on him — a joke all the grimmer for the awareness of our inescapable impermanence, and all the more despairing:

Today or tomorrow sickness and death will come (they had come already) to those I love or to me; nothing will remain but stench and worms. Sooner or later my affairs, whatever they may be, will be forgotten, and I shall not exist. Then why go on making any effort? . . . How can man fail to see this? And how go on living? That is what is surprising! One can only live while one is intoxicated with life; as soon as one is sober it is impossible not to see that it is all a mere fraud and a stupid fraud! That is precisely what it is: there is nothing either amusing or witty about it, it is simply cruel and stupid.


Had I simply understood that life had no meaning I could have borne it quietly, knowing that that was my lot. But I could not satisfy myself with that. Had I been like a man living in a wood from which he knows there is no exit, I could have lived; but I was like one lost in a wood who, horrified at having lost his way, rushes about wishing to find the road. He knows that each step he takes confuses him more and more, but still he cannot help rushing about. It was indeed terrible. And to rid myself of the terror I wished to kill myself.

And yet he recognized that the inquiry at the heart of his spiritual malady was neither unique nor complicated:

My question … was the simplest of questions, lying in the soul of every man from the foolish child to the wisest elder: it was a question without an answer to which one cannot live, as I had found by experience. It was: “What will come of what I am doing today or shall do tomorrow? What will come of my whole life?” Differently expressed, the question is: “Why should I live, why wish for anything, or do anything?” It can also be expressed thus: “Is there any meaning in my life that the inevitable death awaiting me does not destroy?”

Seeking to answer this seemingly simple yet paralyzingly profound question, Tolstoy first turned to science, but found that rather than recognizing and answering the question, science circumvented it and instead asked its own questions, then answered those. Most of all, he found it incapable of illuminating the infinite and instead reducing its questions and answers to finite. He writes:

These are all words with no meaning, for in the infinite there is neither complex nor simple, neither forward nor backward, nor better or worse.


One who sincerely inquires how he is to live cannot be satisfied with the reply — “Study in endless space the mutations, infinite in time and in complexity, of innumerable atoms, and then you will understand your life” — so also a sincere man cannot be satisfied with the reply: “Study the whole life of humanity of which we cannot know either the beginning or the end, of which we do not even know a small part, and then you will understand your own life.”

A century and a half before Alan Lightman tussled, elegantly, with the same paradox, Tolstoy captured the Catch-22 of the predicament:

The problem of experimental science is the sequence of cause and effect in material phenomena. It is only necessary for experimental science to introduce the question of a final cause for it to become nonsensical. The problem of abstract science is the recognition of the primordial essence of life. It is only necessary to introduce the investigation of consequential phenomena (such as social and historical phenomena) and it also becomes nonsensical. Experimental science only then gives positive knowledge and displays the greatness of the human mind when it does not introduce into its investigations the question of an ultimate cause. And, on the contrary, abstract science is only then science and displays the greatness of the human mind when it puts quite aside questions relating to the consequential causes of phenomena and regards man solely in relation to an ultimate cause.

He then turned to philosophy, but found himself equally disillusioned:

Philosophy not merely does not reply, but is itself only asking that question. And if it is real philosophy all its labour lies merely in trying to put that question clearly.

Instead of an answer, he finds in philosophy “the same question, only in a complex form.” He bemoans the inability of either science or philosophy to offer a real answer:

One kind of knowledge did not reply to life’s question, the other kind replied directly confirming my despair, indicating not that the result at which I had arrived was the fruit of error or of a diseased state of my mind, but on the contrary that I had thought correctly, and that my thoughts coincided with the conclusions of the most powerful of human minds.

Frustrated, Tolstoy answers his own question:

“Why does everything exist that exists, and why do I exist?” “Because it exists.”

It’s a sentiment that John Cage would second a century later (“No why. Just here.”) and George Lucas would also echo (“There is no why. We are. Life is beyond reason.”) — a proposition that comes closest to the spiritual tradition of Buddhism. And, indeed, Tolstoy turns to spirituality in one final and desperate attempt at an answer — first by surveying how those in his social circle lived with this all-consuming inquiry. He found among them four strategies for managing the existential despair, but none that resolved it:

I found that for people of my circle there were four ways out of the terrible position in which we are all placed. The first was that of ignorance. It consists in not knowing, not understanding, that life is an evil and an absurdity. From [people of this sort] I had nothing to learn — one cannot cease to know what one does know.

The second way out is epicureanism. It consists, while knowing the hopelessness of life, in making use meanwhile of the advantages one has, disregarding the dragon and the mice, and licking the honey in the best way, especially if there is much of it within reach… That is the way in which the majority of people of our circle make life possible for themselves. Their circumstances furnish them with more of welfare than of hardship, and their moral dullness makes it possible for them to forget that the advantage of their position is accidental … and that the accident that has today made me a Solomon may tomorrow make me a Solomon’s slave. The dullness of these people’s imagination enables them to forget the things that gave Buddha no peace — the inevitability of sickness, old age, and death, which today or tomorrow will destroy all these pleasures.

The third escape is that of strength and energy. It consists in destroying life, when one has understood that it is an evil and an absurdity. A few exceptionally strong and consistent people act so. Having understood the stupidity of the joke that has been played on them, and having understood that it is better to be dead than to be alive, and that it is best of all not to exist, they act accordingly and promptly end this stupid joke, since there are means: a rope round one’s neck, water, a knife to stick into one’s heart, or the trains on the railways; and the number of those of our circle who act in this way becomes greater and greater, and for the most part they act so at the best time of their life, when the strength of their mind is in full bloom and few habits degrading to the mind have as yet been acquired…

The fourth way out is that of weakness. It consists in seeing the truth of the situation and yet clinging to life, knowing in advance that nothing can come of it. People of this kind know that death is better than life, but not having the strength to act rationally — to end the deception quickly and kill themselves — they seem to wait for something. This is the escape of weakness, for if I know what is best and it is within my power, why not yield to what is best? … The fourth way was to live like Solomon and Schopenhauer — knowing that life is a stupid joke played upon us, and still to go on living, washing oneself, dressing, dining, talking, and even writing books. This was to me repulsive and tormenting, but I remained in that position.

Finding himself in the fourth category, Tolstoy begins to question why he hadn’t killed himself. Suddenly, he realizes that a part of him was questioning the very validity of his depressive thoughts, presenting “a vague doubt” as to the certainty of his conclusions about the senselessness of life. Humbled by the awareness that the mind is both puppet and puppet-master, he writes:

It was like this: I, my reason, have acknowledged that life is senseless. If there is nothing higher than reason (and there is not: nothing can prove that there is), then reason is the creator of life for me. If reason did not exist there would be for me no life. How can reason deny life when it is the creator of life? Or to put it the other way: were there no life, my reason would not exist; therefore reason is life’s son. Life is all. Reason is its fruit yet reason rejects life itself! I felt that there was something wrong here.

And he discovers the solution not in science or philosophy or the life of hedonism, but in those living life in its simplest and purest form:

The reasoning showing the vanity of life is not so difficult, and has long been familiar to the very simplest folk; yet they have lived and still live. How is it they all live and never think of doubting the reasonableness of life?

My knowledge, confirmed by the wisdom of the sages, has shown me that everything on earth — organic and inorganic — is all most cleverly arranged — only my own position is stupid. And those fools — the enormous masses of people — know nothing about how everything organic and inorganic in the world is arranged; but they live, and it seems to them that their life is very wisely arranged! . . .

And it struck me: “But what if there is something I do not yet know? Ignorance behaves just in that way. Ignorance always says just what I am saying. When it does not know something, it says that what it does not know is stupid. Indeed, it appears that there is a whole humanity that lived and lives as if it understood the meaning of its life, for without understanding it could not live; but I say that all this life is senseless and that I cannot live.

Awake to what Stuart Firestein would call “thoroughly conscious ignorance” some 130 years later, Tolstoy sees his own blinders with new eyes:

In the delusion of my pride of intellect it seemed to me so indubitable that I and Solomon and Schopenhauer had stated the question so truly and exactly that nothing else was possible — so indubitable did it seem that all those milliards consisted of men who had not yet arrived at an apprehension of all the profundity of the question — that I sought for the meaning of my life without it once occurring to me to ask: “But what meaning is and has been given to their lives by all the milliards of common folk who live and have lived in the world?”

I long lived in this state of lunacy, which, in fact if not in words, is particularly characteristic of us very liberal and learned people. But thanks either to the strange physical affection I have for the real laboring people, which compelled me to understand them and to see that they are not so stupid as we suppose, or thanks to the sincerity of my conviction that I could know nothing beyond the fact that the best I could do was to hang myself, at any rate I instinctively felt that if I wished to live and understand the meaning of life, I must seek this meaning not among those who have lost it and wish to kill themselves, but among those milliards of the past and the present who make life and who support the burden of their own lives and of ours also. And I considered the enormous masses of those simple, unlearned, and poor people who have lived and are living and I saw something quite different. I saw that, with rare exceptions, all those milliards who have lived and are living do not fit into my divisions, and that I could not class them as not understanding the question, for they themselves state it and reply to it with extraordinary clearness. Nor could I consider them epicureans, for their life consists more of privations and sufferings than of enjoyments. Still less could I consider them as irrationally dragging on a meaningless existence, for every act of their life, as well as death itself, is explained by them. To kill themselves they consider the greatest evil. It appeared that all mankind had a knowledge, unacknowledged and despised by me, of the meaning of life. It appeared that reasonable knowledge does not give the meaning of life, but excludes life: while the meaning attributed to life by milliards of people, by all humanity, rests on some despised pseudo-knowledge.

He considers the necessary irrationality of faith and contemplates its unfair ask of forsaking reason:

Rational knowledge presented by the learned and wise, denies the meaning of life, but the enormous masses of men, the whole of mankind receive that meaning in irrational knowledge. And that irrational knowledge is faith, that very thing which I could not but reject. It is God, One in Three; the creation in six days; the devils and angels, and all the rest that I cannot accept as long as I retain my reason.

My position was terrible. I knew I could find nothing along the path of reasonable knowledge except a denial of life; and there — in faith — was nothing but a denial of reason, which was yet more impossible for me than a denial of life. From rational knowledge it appeared that life is an evil, people know this and it is in their power to end life; yet they lived and still live, and I myself live, though I have long known that life is senseless and an evil. By faith it appears that in order to understand the meaning of life I must renounce my reason, the very thing for which alone a meaning is required…

A contradiction arose from which there were two exits. Either that which I called reason was not so rational as I supposed, or that which seemed to me irrational was not so irrational as I supposed.

And therein he finds the error in all of his prior reasoning, the root of his melancholia about life’s meaninglessness:

Verifying the line of argument of rational knowledge I found it quite correct. The conclusion that life is nothing was inevitable; but I noticed a mistake. The mistake lay in this, that my reasoning was not in accord with the question I had put. The question was: “Why should I live, that is to say, what real, permanent result will come out of my illusory transitory life — what meaning has my finite existence in this infinite world?” And to reply to that question I had studied life.

The solution of all the possible questions of life could evidently not satisfy me, for my question, simple as it at first appeared, included a demand for an explanation of the finite in terms of the infinite, and vice versa.

I asked: “What is the meaning of my life, beyond time, cause, and space?” And I replied to quite another question: “What is the meaning of my life within time, cause, and space?” With the result that, after long efforts of thought, the answer I reached was: “None.”

In my reasonings I constantly compared (nor could I do otherwise) the finite with the finite, and the infinite with the infinite; but for that reason I reached the inevitable result: force is force, matter is matter, will is will, the infinite is the infinite, nothing is nothing — and that was all that could result.


Philosophic knowledge denies nothing, but only replies that the question cannot be solved by it — that for it the solution remains indefinite.

Having understood this, I understood that it was not possible to seek in rational knowledge for a reply to my question, and that the reply given by rational knowledge is a mere indication that a reply can only be obtained by a different statement of the question and only when the relation of the finite to the infinite is included in the question. And I understood that, however irrational and distorted might be the replies given by faith, they have this advantage, that they introduce into every answer a relation between the finite and the infinite, without which there can be no solution.

So that besides rational knowledge, which had seemed to me the only knowledge, I was inevitably brought to acknowledge that all live humanity has another irrational knowledge — faith which makes it possible to live. Faith still remained to me as irrational as it was before, but I could not but admit that it alone gives mankind a reply to the questions of life, and that consequently it makes life possible.

Tolstoy notes that, whatever the faith may be, it “gives to the finite existence of man an infinite meaning, a meaning not destroyed by sufferings, deprivations, or death,” and yet he is careful not to conflate faith with a specific religion. Like Flannery O’Connor, who so beautifully differentiated between religion and faith, Tolstoy writes:

I understood that faith is not merely “the evidence of things not seen”, etc., and is not a revelation (that defines only one of the indications of faith, is not the relation of man to God (one has first to define faith and then God, and not define faith through God); it is not only agreement with what has been told one (as faith is most usually supposed to be), but faith is a knowledge of the meaning of human life in consequence of which man does not destroy himself but lives. Faith is the strength of life. If a man lives he believes in something. If he did not believe that one must live for something, he would not live. If he does not see and recognize the illusory nature of the finite, he believes in the finite; if he understands the illusory nature of the finite, he must believe in the infinite. Without faith he cannot live…

For man to be able to live he must either not see the infinite, or have such an explanation of the meaning of life as will connect the finite with the infinite.

And yet the closer he examines faith, the more glaring he finds the disconnect between it and religion, particularly the teachings of the Christian church and the practices of the wealthy. Once again, he returns to the peasants as a paragon of spiritual salvation, of bridging the finite with the infinite, and once again seeing in their ways an ethos most closely resembling the Buddhist philosophy of acceptance:

In contrast with what I had seen in our circle, where the whole of life is passed in idleness, amusement, and dissatisfaction, I saw that the whole life of these people was passed in heavy labour, and that they were content with life. In contradistinction to the way in which people of our circle oppose fate and complain of it on account of deprivations and sufferings, these people accepted illness and sorrow without any perplexity or opposition, and with a quiet and firm conviction that all is good. In contradistinction to us, who the wiser we are the less we understand the meaning of life, and see some evil irony in the fact that we suffer and die, these folk live and suffer, and they approach death and suffering with tranquility and in most cases gladly…

In complete contrast to my ignorance, [they] knew the meaning of life and death, labored quietly, endured deprivations and sufferings, and lived and died seeing therein not vanity but good…


I understood that if I wish to understand life and its meaning, I must not live the life of a parasite, but must live a real life, and — taking the meaning given to live by real humanity and merging myself in that life — verify it.

Via Ken Morrison, Ivon Prefontaine, Mark E. Deschaine, PhD
Ken Morrison's curator insight, November 22, 6:47 PM

Tolstoy's thoughts on the meaning of life

Ivon Prefontaine's curator insight, November 22, 8:25 PM

Philosophy and literature is filled with many who questioned what their lives meant. In French it is an experience/experiment and in German Lebenswelt.



Rescooped by Ricard Lloria from Effective Education!

The Common Traits Of The Most Successful People

The Common Traits Of The Most Successful People | Making #love and making personal #branding #leadership |
What makes someone ordinary become extraordinary? Is it their intellect or good luck? Is it their charisma and leadership qualities? There’s no definite formula, but there’s also no denying that there are common traits that make successful people stand apart from everyone else. There are ways of doing things and thinking about the world that people at top just do differently.

Via David Hain, Mark E. Deschaine, PhD
David Hain's curator insight, November 22, 4:09 AM


Scooped by Ricard Lloria!

10 Daily Habits of Exceptionally Happy People

What you decide not to do can make a huge difference in your life.
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Ricard Lloria from Coaching- Desarrollo Personal y Profesional!

“La felicidad no es un lugar, es un camino”

“La felicidad no es un lugar, es un camino” | Making #love and making personal #branding #leadership |
Testimonio de un héroe cotidiano: un gran directivo de éxito que se enfrenta a su adicción y a su propio vacío personal.

Via Maite Finch
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Ricard Lloria from Gestión del talento y comunicación organizacional- Talent Management and Communications!

#RRHH #Liderazgo Cómo motivar a los empleados en el momento de asignarles una tarea

#RRHH #Liderazgo Cómo motivar a los empleados en el momento de asignarles una tarea | Making #love and making personal #branding #leadership |

Quiero contar un ejemplo que deja claro cómo el liderazgo puede hacer una gran diferencia en la motivación de los empleados. Una empresa tenía una gran oportunidad de ventas.

Via Fernanda Grimaldi
No comment yet.
Scooped by Ricard Lloria!

#Recomiendo #RRHH #Empresas con otras razones por @anamasanro

#Recomiendo #RRHH #Empresas con otras razones por @anamasanro | Making #love and making personal #branding #leadership |

    "Decía Blaise Pascal, que el corazón tiene razones que la razón no entiende."

…Y es que estas razones del corazón nos llevan por otros derroteros.
Más de uno me mataría si digo que las empresas deberían empezar a dejarse llevar por las razones del corazón. Me explico, este corazón viene a ser el motor impulsor del humanismo empresarial.
Una nueva generación de empresas comienza a surgir poco a poco y se distinguen porque llevan la ética en su ADN, la ética en el corazón, en palabras de Adela Cortina.

No comment yet.