This is a false dilemma. The Middle Path is to be assertive.
There are times when each state -- passive, assertive and aggressive can be useful and problematic.
Attempting to form universal rules and laws is generally where people will find suffering.
2007-04-30 17:43:29
·
answer #1
·
answered by guru 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Neither. Living assertively is the way to go.
Passivity is laziness cloaked in the virtue of patience and acting aggressively to senselessly dominate others is a way to keep busy and not think about yourself and what kind of state you're in. It also perpetuates a sense of entitlement.
Assertive living is best because then you cleave onto the rights that are yours but leave what you have no right to. It takes both the courage to stand up and the (genuine) Patience to back off and the intelligence to know when to do what.
2007-05-01 09:40:48
·
answer #2
·
answered by K 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
the symbol for ying yang represents the balance between them, and in effect advocates living with both, in balance, the middle without tending to the excess of either.
i naturally tend to the passive, and sometimes feel the aggressive approach may be better for getting what i want.
2007-05-01 03:06:12
·
answer #3
·
answered by implosion13 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
If you live aggressively, you are always trying to MAKE something happen to your design, but life never does what you want. You will find yourself frustrated by life if you try to make it do what you want. Act passively and you don't take advantage of opportunities when they arise. The best path is the middle way, not too much of either extreme.
2007-05-01 00:21:21
·
answer #4
·
answered by neuralzen 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Neither.
The key to yin and yang is balance. One cannot exist without the other, and one without the other is not good.
That being said however, and favouring one, I would say being "assertive" is a good thing.
2007-05-01 00:20:44
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
it depends - do you want to be a leader or a "shaker N mover? " If what you really want is to be the front person - the quarter back, the lead singer - then you need to be aggressive. You have to make it happen.
You can also make a difference, passively by being the support system, the back up singers and the blockers make the quarter back and lead singer look good. They enable them to shine out front.
Both have their importance in the scheme of things.
We have to figure out who we really are and be that -
2007-05-01 00:24:04
·
answer #6
·
answered by dianes98 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The best way is to be assertive. If you're passive you let people walk all over you. If you're agressive then you step on people, but if you're assertive you walk with them. You show others respect & they respect you. You stand up for yourself but not at the expense of others. It is the perfect balance.
2007-05-01 03:19:54
·
answer #7
·
answered by amp 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
"passively or aggressively".
There is no "or," you've created a false dichotomy.
Just use logic instead of emotion: If something good is going to happen from your action, then follow through with your action. If something bad is going to happen, then don't! In the end its neither passivity or aggression that gets you through, but rather, logic.
2007-05-01 00:19:58
·
answer #8
·
answered by shanhelp 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
You have to find the half way point.
Thats with its Yin Yang.
Not Yin or Yang.
They go together, not seperate.
2007-05-01 00:16:44
·
answer #9
·
answered by Shaggy 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
If I had to choose one I'd say aggressive, but not in a negative way, more in just an assertive/active sense. Life is short...
2007-05-01 00:19:50
·
answer #10
·
answered by starlake18 2
·
0⤊
0⤋