Some people think success of life is based on hard work and determination but others think there are more important factors like money and appearance. Discuss both sides and give your own opinion?
A successful balanced life is a life of goal attainment and joy. Some people deem that to realize a successful life is closely related with money and people’s physical features. After serious consideration, I am convinced that the realization of such ideal life is mainly based on industrious work and wise choices.
To begin with, assiduous work is an inevitable pathway to gain happiness and accomplishment. Undeniably, without persistent efforts, a profitable return can fail to gain. For instance, every successful person who has obtained financial freedom and happiness in life conquers obstructions to reach their goals via sedulous and pragmatic efforts. Hence, diligent work plays an essential role in carrying out a desired life.
Secondly, advisable choices can determine whether one’s life is happy or not. In other words, incorrect choices may lead to all efforts in vain. For example, choosing a befitting career and appropriate work can help a person play out his full potential and furthermore, acquire happiness from work and eudemonia from life. From this point, proper selections are the key to deciding one’s life is a success or failure.
Admittedly, Wealth and physical features are also considered significant elements for success in individual life. Wealth can bring security and happiness, while charming appearances can bring preferable partners. However, successful livelihood is relied on some fundamental elements which contain constant efforts, fortitudinous willpower, and rational decisions as to one’s career and directions in life.
In brief, earnest surefooted work and vital sensible choices are vital factors to happiness in life. Meanwhile, money and personal looks are only supporting factors to a balanced life of success.
In some cities, there are few controls over the design and construction of new homes and office buildings, so people can build in whatever style they like. Do you think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?
Architectures serve people’s needs for housing and meanwhile they represent mankind’s pursuit for aesthetics. It seems that individuals have the absolute right to build their homes and offices as whatever style they like, but in fact this is not true all the time.
Without control from the authorities, property owners can design and construct the buildings into their favorite styles. Since individuals vary in the preference for housing, this seems to be a good way to satisfy their different needs and improve their living standard. Also, this mode encourages individuality and innovation, so we can expect more fascinating buildings to be erected in the city. When walking in some metropolises today, we can see many commercial buildings and cultural facilities with unique design and magnificent appearance, some of which have become the city's landmarks.
However, the complete freedom in the construction industry may cause some problems. In the construction of buildings, some builders may give priority to the appearance rather than safety and practicality. In this case, the government should intervene to ensure the buildings' security and the best use of materials and land resources. In addition, as buildings constitute the landscape of the city, how they look like is not simply a personal choice particularly in some cities that feature old buildings with cultural implications. If new buildings are designed freely, they may not match the overall style of the city and undermine its cultural identity
Generally, people should be able to decide how to build their houses, while in some cases, the government's regulation and coordination are required.
Many young people today know more about international pop and movie stares than about famous people in the history in their country. Why is this? What can be done to increase young people’s interest in famous people in the history of their country?
Generally speaking, young people of the present Information Age know much more about international pop and movie stars but they know much less about famous people in their own country. Why this is so, and how to increase young people’s interest in national celebrities in history?
The first reason for this difference of knowledge has much to do with the visibility. In a mass-media culture, celebrities, such as pop and movie stars on the international stage, are usually more visible than the famous people in a local country. As a result, young people have stronger feelings for celebrities across the world who appear in mass media a great deal more often than the famous people in their own country who lived in the past. Another important reason is that young people are naturally drawn to the fashionable things NOW rather than anything, however great, in the past. It is not that young people do not understand the importance of these people from history, but that they simply do not care to know more about them.
In order to attract young people's attention to the famous individuals from the history in the country where they live, the news media outlets, including television and online publications, had better be encouraged to make widely visible those famous people of historical significance to the domestic audience. Meanwhile, these famous people should be presented in media in such a way that young people can accept them as their role models. Only in this way will young people be interested in knowing more about them.
In conclusion, young people know more about international celebrities who enjoy more visibility than the famous people in their own country. Increasing their visibility and making them more attractive are the two things that must be done in order to draw young people's greater attention to the local famous people.