Answer and Explanation:
According to Buddhism, which has deep connections with Taoism, the origin of all suffering is desire. In chapter 33 of the Tao Te Ching we read, “Those who know they have enough are truly wealthy.” <u>Desiring means thinking you do not have enough, and that is a thought that is bound to bring unhappiness and suffering along with it.
</u>
I have noticed that about myself a long time ago, and was actually relieved to realize there was a whole philosophy built around this idea. <u>Desiring too much was not good for me. I was never peaceful; something always seemed to be missing.</u> I do not mean we should not have goals. Having a goal gives us motivation and reason to be disciplined. Achieving a goal makes us feel competent and capable enough to do more and better. But, to paraphrase Lao Tsu, we should not dwell in it. Once we achieve a certain goal, we should move on, let go of it.
<u>What I mean by desire is that restlessness that seems to hover, constantly, and that takes us nowhere.</u> It is the petty wishes and envies we have when we compare ourselves to influencers and friends on social media. It is the dissatisfaction we feel when we look at our own lives only to see how boring it is – or how boring we have convinced ourselves it is. Desire, in this context, is that endless hunger for more, although we do not know what more means. It is our incapacity to see how wealthy we truly are.
“Whoever knows contentment will be at peace forever,” says Lao Tsu in chapter 46 of the Tao Te Ching. <u>Once I tried to desire less, I became a happier being.</u> By choice, I began to spend less time on social media. I also began to look at others’ lives from a critical perspective, questioning how much of what they post and say is actually true. I reminded myself that I am healthy, capable, strong, and intelligent, and that waking up every day like that is a blessing.<u> I realized peace, in every sense of the word but especially peace of mind, is the only thing once should desire if it is impossible to not desire something.</u>
Answer:
The Russian Empire, The French Third Republic, and Great Britain formed Triple Entente.
Explanation:
The Triple Entente describes informal understanding between the Russian Empire, the French Third Republic, and Great Britain. It was based on the Franco-Russian alliance of 1894, the 1904 Entente cordiale between Paris and London, and the Anglo-Russian Agreement of 1907. It was a strong counterweight to the Triple Alliance of Germany and Austria-Hungary and Italy. Unlike the Franco-Russian alliance or the Triple Alliance, the Triple Entente itself was not a mutual defence alliance. At the start of World War I in 1914, all the three members of the Triple Entente were Allied Powers against the Central Powers in Germany and Austria-Hungary. On September 4, 1914, the Triple Entente published a statement pledging not to conclude a separate peace and to demand only the peace conditions agreed between the three parties. Historians continue to discuss the importance of the alliance system as one of the causes of the First World War.
Answer:
Mostly money and promise of the American dream.
Many poor Europeans and other immigrants heard about the Americans and their lavish lives and wanted to try their luck and escape their poverty. However, they didn't have enough money to emigrate to America which is why they would become indentured servants.
This meant that they would sign a contract with their employer who would then pay for their travel expenses to America, and in turn they would have to work for them for a number of years in return for food and shelter. When the contract expired, ideally the indentured servant became free (although this didn't always happen). Their status was slightly better than that of a slave.
(Since you didn't give us any options, I can't tell you the exact answer).
Answer: The argument has often been used to diminish the scale of slavery, reducing it to a crime committed by a few Southern planters, one that did not touch the rest of the United States. Slavery, the argument goes, was an inefficient system, and the labor of the enslaved was considered less productive than that of a free worker being paid a wage.
Answer: I believe this is true
Explanation:
This was copied from a website : In the early days Quaker views toward women were remarkably progressive, and by the 19th century many Quakers were active in the movement for women's rights
