It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What's wrong with a little opportunism?

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
I think people in modern society have given opportunism a bad name. If Ayn Rand was right about any one thing it was that more often than not people seem to be giving up the spirit of the individual to a collective whole. I think that opportunism got a bad rep from other people who have been left out from someone who took their opportunities when they were given them.

With me personally, in the past I've lost out on many opportunities because I didn't take them. I didn't want them because I thought I was beneath them. But now the way I see it is that if something good comes along- I should go out and do it if I will like it or if it will bring a rewarding experience to me. I'm much more of a risk taker than I was before. I take those opportunities that I didn't take before.

If someone doesn't take various opportunities that they have presented to them then hey have no right to complain. They can't complain that life is unfair if they don't take what is offered to them. There is one thing as being denied opportunities because you tried and didn't succeed the first few times. It is another to claim to be denied opportunities because you don't try at all.

A little opportunism is not a bad thing. Everyone is somewhat opportunistic at heart. Those that aren't opportunistic are the followers. These people are the ones that are in groups and they follow everything their leader says. If they're a little more opportunistic than they'll be motivated and doing other things for themselves.

Opportunism in my mind is the same thing as ambition. I don't see why ambition has gotten a positive label but opportunism has not. If the other people who complain about opportunism were more opportunistic I don't think they'd be complaining as much.

Lastly, it's all fair and well to give other people a chance in groups. We can't take all the opportunities for ourselves. Then we'd be a dictator. But, sometimes if other people aren't doing anything, you have to make a stand, you have to do something. We should give other people a chance but if it would mean going under a different direction than you would like or what would be good for the people there... that's what opportunism is for. It allows for people to compete for power.

I've come to appreciate the philosophy more as of late. I don't see myself as a strict opportunist... but I certainly think people should be doing more than what they are doing, myself included.




posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Wasting a good opportunity is just shameful.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Opportunism is not bad persé. It is good if it is being instigated for your own good. That is really what ambition is all about.
It becomes a lesser good once it is used to gain something, while in the process of it, you deprive certain people.
It's tedious. Ambition, once experienced as positive, it can very easily slide into a feeling of superiority. In my opinion, it's essential to hold that perspective as well.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   
I think you're confusing "opportunism" with making use of opportunities when they arise.

If you change the definition of a word, then it's a short step to seeing nothing wrong with what you say it means.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by MrDesolate
 


any word is absolutely objective right at one point, so opportunism too
what is opportune is free of all right and end possibly to present positive realisation of being free

what is never opportune is what is objectively already existing, then meaning making business of what is real is always wrong, a lot of conscious refuse to admit what they already know, what is existing objectively is right only as it is, so enjoying meaning it positively should be only through its absolute fact realities as it is and for

where opportunities could rise out from free selves considerations to objective right values,

if u always enjoy getting smthg out of smthg else, i dont get from where u enjoy really any

what is to else or objective fact so as else not u at all, is its own positive sense absolutely so no other positive sense from possible



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by absolutely
 


If I had the energy, I might be able to sift through that and find enough words to create an actual sentence. Since I don't, I'll just wish you well there on your home planet.

(See, this would be an "opportunistic response". A teachable moment not to be wasted.)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by MrDesolate
 


exactly, words replies are living example of best opportunities realisations

pointing different thing value reality out of honest present consideration to the full precedent expression as it is



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
freedom constancy still fact is always through being an absolute one reality, so the point is to keep in mind when freedom mean its objectivity, that the absolute reality one is bc of freedom value, so u must start by freedom not the absolute one expression to b right objective existence

that is why the right reply is what consider the absolute freedom right of the other expression through not arguing its point reality one made, while realizing fully another point where some difference of means or perspective could be included clearly in keeping it free, since really freedom is what matters it is absolute reasons, while freedom has no reason at all whatever its value is true



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by absolutely
 


the objective response is that it examines the absolute right of freedom of other expression via entire not supporting the truth of its point that becomes, realizing an other at all where a difference of means or the perspective could have been clearly comprised to the reservation the free one, since really the freedom is that nuance they are absolute speeches, while the freedom to no reason it imports that its value is true



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
which suggest that reasons are always to novalue needs to stay constant, value by definition is above zero stillness then always positive superiority reference, that is why i guess it has no reason needs since its reason is included of bein always value in absolute objective term and subjective one constant existing fact

that is why too when u consider others reasons u r always asserting their absolute inferiority, which is wrong and clearly shown how others react in rejecting that mean upon themselves while in depth they are meaning their freedom value so their right to move or to exist without having to specify a source of their existence or an end to their moves



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrDesolate
reply to post by absolutely
 


the objective response is that it examines the absolute right of freedom of other expression via entire not supporting the truth of its point that becomes, realizing an other at all where a difference of means or the perspective could have been clearly comprised to the reservation the free one, since really the freedom is that nuance they are absolute speeches, while the freedom to no reason it imports that its value is true


i fully agree speechlessly



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by absolutely
 


If I said I was surprised, I'd be a liar.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
one is always relative to all superiority as objective else

while all is relative to freedom one superiority as objective else

my point is that ones individually are liars when they dont admit that objective is always more right

so they loose freedom value right pretenses from the fact of being liars so any pretense is denied



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by absolutely
 


Gary Busey... Is that you?



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 06:31 AM
link   
There's nothing wrong with taking opportunities, as long as the opportunities don't involve violating ethics.

It's just a 'scary sounding' name. Gives bad vibes. Very few actually belief that accepting chances to better your life when they come along is a bad thing.

It's all about how you define the word. When I read the title, I interpreted opportunism as something like "Taking opportunities to benefit yourself, regardless of the harm to others." That was mostly context clues, title suggested people thought it was wrong, so suggested it was a harmful ideal. And many people would interpret the word like that. A clear distinction needs to be made between those who use immorality to better themselves, and those who say within a moral frame of action to do so. The more moral interpretation, shouldn't be disagreed with really.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I also think you're confusing "opportunism" with making use of opportunities when they arise.

There's nothing wrong with taking opportunities, as long as the opportunities don't involve violating your values, and society's values.

See,
Doesn’t Life Require Compromise?
www.naturalthinker.net...
THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS A New Concept of Egoism by Ayn Rand
www.naturalthinker.net...

"...There can be no compromise on moral principles. “In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.” (Atlas Shrugged.) The next time you are tempted to ask: “Doesn't life require compromise?” translate that question into its actual meaning: “Doesn't life require the surrender of that which is true and good to that which is false and evil?” The answer is that that precisely is what life forbids—if one wishes to achieve anything but a stretch of tortured years spent in progressive self-destruction..."


edit on 17-3-2014 by DavRov because: missing quote



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join