How does the concept of “fulfilling a calling” differ from the concept of “realization of talent”?
In some cases, the terms “calling” and “talent” can be interpreted as synonyms. However, not always. After all, if God bestows a person with any ability (talent), then he wants this ability to be realized by him to the extent required by the conditions of God’s Economy. If a person has a correct, godly attitude towards his talent, its consistent, active development will correspond to the Divine will. We can say that God calls a person (including) through the gift of one or another talent. How ignoring such a Divine gift ends is shown in the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30).
On the other hand, we must understand that a person’s discovery of individual talent can be carried out both in accordance with God’s eternal plan and contrary to it (see: Synergy).
Let's say the Lord endowed such and such a person with the ability to draw. But he, developing and realizing this ability, can direct it both to painting rough, depraved panels or idol images, and to painting Orthodox icons.
Another example. The person is endowed with the ability for literary activity. Also, as in the previous version, he can write malicious prose, or he can become a good writer. Thus, Leo Tolstoy left us a rich literary heritage, he wrote a lot about good things, revealed the shortcomings of people, and showed their best sides. However, he went against the Church and even against the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and began to deny His Resurrection and His Divine dignity. Unfortunately, many readers, carried away by his writing skills, authority, and fame, followed him as a torch and deviated from the Truth. Did he realize his gift as a writer? - Implemented it. But did he fulfill God's calling? did he please the One who invested this gift in him?
Therefore, a person’s realization of personal talent does not always lead to the fulfillment of God’s calling, but only when a person treats it morally responsibly, when the talent given by God is directed towards Good. In this case, God becomes His Helper and Patron.
***
From the materials of the meeting of the Holy Archangel Brotherhood with O.A. Sedakova.
– So, Father John invited me to talk about vocation today. This is a difficult task, and as usual, when touching on such large topics, I ask you not to see any ready-made solutions in my words. What I can share with you is nothing more than thoughts and observations.
I think it should be noted right away that the word vocation refers to different things. There is a habitual, almost everyday use (essentially meaning an innate inclination towards something, talent) - and there is another, strictly religious idea of vocation. These are different things, I think. Moreover: I think that not distinguishing between them is dangerous, I will talk about this later. In the second case, the original meaning of this word - call - is very direct and specific (there is the voice of the caller, there is a specific deed to which this or that person is called, like the prophet Jonah or Francis of Assisi or Joan of Arc). In the first case, in the usual use of “calling”, this meaning – a direct, clear, “from the outside” calling – is rather metaphorical. Here a person listens to his own inner disposition. But I'll start with this first case.
Vocation in this sense coincides with the physical, mental and spiritual abilities and inclinations of a person. A person seems to find his place in the world: here he feels better than anywhere else, here what would be difficult or boring for others gives him pleasure (as they say “you can’t tear him away!”), here he can easily do what others cannot do : here he is productive, in Goethe's words. Happy is the one who finds this place early, and who has the strength to hold on to his find. Because not every such place is respected in society; neighbors do not always approve of this desire. I have met many people whose parents did not allow them to fulfill such a natural inclination (considering, for example, that a liberal arts education or music or philosophy is an unreliable business, and forcing their children to receive a “solid”, technical, say, education). Or other circumstances got in the way. These people subsequently, having paid their duty of filial or daughterly obedience or tribute to circumstances, still returned to what attracted them (usually at the expense of lost years) - or they lived their whole lives with the bitterness of their own unfulfillment. And this natural calling, as we see, is stronger than man. It is impossible to cheat on him without loss for yourself.
Are there many occupations in the world for which one feels such a pronounced calling? It seems to me that the trouble is that we, modern society, have a very narrow repertoire of such “callings.” Science, art... what else? If they can sometimes say that there is a vocation as a cook, that someone is a cook “by vocation”, a brilliant cook (since cooking is also a kind of creativity), then talking about the vocation of, say, a dentist will sound strange; in any case, unusual. Meanwhile, I met a man who clearly had a calling for this. Nothing in the world was more interesting to him than the structure of teeth and, in general, everything connected with it, and the very activity in which he is engaged and in which he serves people. It was both talent and the strongest passion. I had to meet the same driver by vocation...
But usually such things are not discussed. And since they are not discussed, many people feel deprived of a calling, because it is customary to look for a “person of calling” in a very narrow circle of professions: musicians, artists, scientists - in the circle of traditionally revered occupations, which includes “chosen ones” " And this, of course, is a big mistake or oversight, if you like. Because of this, many troubles happen, many lives are broken - and most of all, according to my observations, it is not those who were not allowed to fulfill their artistic or intellectual calling, but those who chose this path despite the obvious lack of personal calling. How many people undertake to write poetry precisely because it is a highly valued activity. Or because they really love and feel poetry - already written poetry. And as a result, their lives are forever ruined. The point is not that they write bad poetry - something else is worse: they live a false life, “the life of a poet.” They play someone else’s role, and they play it poorly, because they don’t know what the real “life of a poet” is, they know the stereotype. They act out this stereotype in life. A real fisherman (any real one, really) is more like a real poet than such a product. Yes, the area of “creative professions” is the place where the most mistakes are made, where people choose someone else’s life for themselves.
It would be worth breaking this inertia, it would be worth taking into account how different - and how unexpected - real professional callings can be. And not only professional ones - the range of professions available in our civilization is much narrower than a person’s inclinations! There is no such profession as “friend,” let’s say, but there is a calling to be a friend. And the simplest criterion, I think, for discerning a vocation is: does a person feel that he feels good when he is busy with one thing or another. Work according to purpose, according to calling, brings joy in itself, regardless of its results. A person does not need anything else at this time. It doesn’t really matter to him whether it will bring him success or recognition. He's happy when he just does this. He feels that here, this is where the fullness of his life is. And it can be the strangest things. This is what probably needs to be reminded to a modern person who is tuned to a very narrow repertoire of “callings” - that there are many more of them. You just have to be more attentive to yourself and notice where you feel good. Where you feel good is where you do your job. This is a natural calling. Let's leave this word for now, although it seems to me that another word is more appropriate here: purpose, let's say. But – I will object to myself – this criterion is not absolute. After all, a graphomaniac feels very good when he composes his verses! He experiences ecstasy such as Shakespeare never knew. And a madman often feels more “in his place” than a healthy person! Worth thinking...
But one way or another, this fulfilled natural calling or coincidence with one’s own place is a great success. If this happens, sooner or later, a person may say: “Finally I know what life is. I live, I’m not serving time or working off a debt, I’m in my place.” This can happen at different times, in different eras of human life. In childhood, in adolescence, and sometimes quite late. Suddenly a person finds some point where he feels good, where he seems to be supposed to be, finds what he was born for.
But I repeat, we are not yet talking about the spiritual calling itself. About a natural gift, natural attraction. And such a natural calling undoubtedly obliges us to do something. When they say that N.N. - a person is capable, but lazy, then most likely he is simply not very capable, not fully capable. Because real ability is also the ability to work. To an outsider, it may seem that a professional musician or performer is a martyr. Sitting over one passage for several hours? For me it would be just torture! But for him this is not forced and stupid labor at all, this is his calling. What can we say about the physical suffering of ballerinas? Or about a philologist rummaging through a pile of volumes in search of one word? The idea of some kind of “abilities” abstracted from “work” is very superficial. The ability for patience and work is part of the gift, perhaps the defining part. But let me emphasize - the ability to work, the happiness of voluntary work.
Of course, there is no need to simplify things. It happens that a person sees that his calling requires too much from him, and he wants to run away and do something else, or nothing. It’s good if you are corrected and guided from the outside. It’s good when the boy Mozart has a father assigned to him who will not let him run away from his calling. But, I repeat, the ability to work itself is perhaps the most important ability. The ability to grow, the ability not to feel sorry for yourself and not to feel that your work is a “sacrifice” that should be followed by some kind of reward, some kind of achievement (as Pushkin’s Salieri describes his studies). In Soviet times, they did not like the theme of the gift: it did not fit into the materialist worldview, into class theory, into populist aesthetics. They preferred to talk about work. People, they say, are distinguished not by some mysterious talent, but simply by hard work. Various authoritative opinions were cited, such as the words of P.I. Tchaikovsky that a work contains either 90% labor or 95% (I don’t remember the statistics) and, accordingly, 10 or 5% talent. Those who became great simply did a good job. This is undoubtedly true! One thing is silent here: that this is the gift of labor, the inspiration of free labor.
When
the imagination boils more alive in the flames of labor,
as Pushkin wrote. No matter how you force or persuade someone who does not have a gift for it to work, nothing will work. There will be no fire in such work. And there is nothing to boil on it.
So this very division into “talent” and “gift” is too flat. And not only labor or “ability to work” is included in the gift, but also a kind of spontaneous asceticism. There is some kind of acceptance of limitations, a natural asceticism in each of these natural callings. As you know, the Apostle Paul sets athletes and athletes as a model for Christians: if they want to win, they will certainly abstain from one thing or another. An athlete is the most obvious example of physical asceticism. In order for your body to remain obedient and be used as a good tool, you have to give up a lot. In other professions, such natural abstinence may have less to do with purely physical limitations, and more to do with mental and spiritual ones. Here, an experienced master is, in a sense, his own coach; he knows and constantly learns what is harmful to his business, after which he cannot return to his work. Perhaps there are some general, simple patterns here. For example, everything that dispels, everything that entertains, everything that deafens, makes it very difficult for people of intellectual work to return to their field.
And probably only people with a vocation, busy with what they love, what they put above themselves, can be called fully accomplished people. One can envy them, whatever their calling: they have something that no circumstances can take away. In any circumstances, they will go about their business. I have heard in what circumstances this was possible. So the great astronomer Kozyrev told how in Stalin’s camps, chained to a wheelbarrow, he observed the starry sky. Both the car and the imprisonment became secondary circumstances for him. He continued his work. Or my teacher, philologist Mikhail Viktorovich Panov said: in the active army, on the front line (he was an artilleryman), when the German attack had already begun, he thought about the possibility of free verse, free verse in the Russian language. He had no time to fear an attack.
That's what a calling is. It seems to take a person out of immediate circumstances, free him, and give him support forever. We said that this requires both work and a certain abstinence, but all this is perceived as a voluntary matter. Such people are often described as heroic and sacrificial, but from the inside this is not what they look like. They are happy with what they do, they live by it, and they do not have the feeling of making a heavy sacrifice. Vladimir Veniaminovich Bibikhin spent the last night of his life editing a book about Wittgenstein. He no longer had the strength to move his finger. The editor sat by the bed and read aloud to him the unclear passages. They checked cross-references. And they finished this technical (!) work only when Vladimir Veniaminovich fell asleep. This was his last dream. Many will say: what heroism, unheard of self-sacrifice! But I’m sure Bibikhin himself would not agree with this: for him it was not a sacrifice, but salvation, life itself. Life until the last moment.
We have already talked about society’s inattention to many callings, missions, and too narrow a circle of “selected” occupations. And if a person finds himself in the wrong place, he will always feel like he is somehow worthless, serving his life sentence. He will be restless towards others, envious... But I could try to find where my real place is after all. It can be very strange. For example, I can definitely say about myself: I clearly have a calling to be a cleaner and garden worker. In this kind of activity I do not feel any difficulty; they give me the best of pleasures - the pleasure of a clear conscience. And what? Should I quit my other activities and become a cleaner? On reflection, I think that this “vocation” of a cleaner does not essentially contradict what I do in other areas, in word, in thought. In principle, I do something similar there too. I want to free up space from unnecessary, dirty, damaged things. Not to fill it with something else, but rather to free it. So my passion for cleaning or clearing the garden rather gives me a visual image of my mental activities. Follow and link...
What distinguishes people who have truly found their place? First of all, as I noticed, they think much less about themselves. They are freer from the fundamental disease of modernity, from this endlessly problematic “I”. Who am I, and what am I like, etc., etc.... Am I Napoleon or a trembling creature, am I a genius or a genius? In their case, it’s not so much modesty: it’s busyness.
We remember this question from Salieri: am I not a genius? – ends “Mozart and Salieri” by Pushkin. Father John asked me during the conversation to touch on this thing, “Mozart and Salieri.” What a contrast this is; gift and labor or chosen one and impostor? Salieri is not an impostor. He clearly has a calling, early-discovered impressionability and passion for music (as he describes his first impression of music in childhood, how he feels the music of Mozart). Probably his mistake lies elsewhere: his calling is not creative. Musical, but not creative, if he became... It’s not good to make such experiments with a work of art, but let’s say that we consider Pushkin’s work as incidents from life. Let's say a person like Salieri, who from the first days feels the power of music, who understands from the first hearing what Mozart is playing for him, what vocation could he have? Interpreter. Criticism. Music researcher. Without a doubt. And if he became a critic, a great, insightful critic? Why didn't it occur to him? Because the composer, the creator is obviously superior. There is more honor in creating music than in interpreting it. And if he became a critic, it would not occur to him to measure himself by Mozart. This is completely different. Mozart, I emphasize: as he is depicted by Pushkin, does not possess this critical feeling at all. He doesn't need it. He plays and cannot appreciate what he is playing. They would complement each other perfectly: creator and interpreter.
It is characteristic that Pushkin’s Salieri, a man who is not exactly doing his own thing, always asks the question: why? What's the use? He constantly asks: what is the use of Mozart's genius? A person in his place does not ask this - just as nature does not ask why it does something: why a river flows, why mountains stand. Meister Eckhart has a reflection that if for a thousand years we asked life the question why it lives, and it deigned to answer us, its answer would be: “I live to live.”
My teacher Nikita Ilyich Tolstoy once told me, back in my university years: “If you, Olya, are doing something, the question comes to your mind: why is this? – drop this matter (we were talking about choosing a research topic). Everything can be done only until the question arises: why is this? This is a sign that you are out of place. Everything real is done for nothing. Just".
So, so far we have talked about natural callings. Spiritual vocation in the proper sense, I think, is completely different. This is certainly true if we look at the actual stories of such callings. The narrative of Holy Scripture is full of them.
But a preliminary remark: as in the first case, it is worth remembering the variety of callings, their unexpectedness. Holy Scripture offers us stories of great callings, stories of people decisively chosen from among their people. Does it follow from this that there are uncalled people and, moreover, that these are the majority of people, people without a spiritual calling? I think you will agree with me that every person, since he is created by man, must have his own place, must have a plan for him. Understanding this plan and coinciding with it is another matter. But there cannot be a person who is not needed for anything. There cannot be an unnecessary person, a completely unnecessary one. Otherwise, you and I would profess a different theology.
Pasternak's hero ("Doctor Zhivago") says: you care about resurrection, but you did not notice that you have already been resurrected once - when you were born, when you were brought from non-existence into existence. This is already a resurrection, the first resurrection. And in this sense, every born person is already called, called out of oblivion for life.
Who called me with omnipotent power from
as Pushkin asks in sad poems written for his birthday (“nonentity” in his language - non-existence). Life itself is a calling; It might not exist. You can’t take this as a simple fact: well, I live and I live. It is worth remembering that we are “called to life” and life itself is already a spiritual calling. So, in addition to a distinctive vocation, say, musical or some other, there is this first and common human vocation - life. There are no exceptions here, if we share the Christian faith, if we repeat that Christ “illuminates and enlightens every person who comes into the world,” then there cannot be unnecessary people, not chosen for life, not initially enlightened. This, I think, is the first spiritual calling: to live.
And another calling, so to speak, a second election, a calling in the strict and specific sense of the word - the biblical stories are about it. Here the word “calling” contains its direct, original meaning: a call. This call belongs to the Other. Man himself cannot summon himself. First there must be a voice that calls. The man answers this call, as Abraham answered - and went to God knows where.
This is where we see a very strange thing. If the natural calling, as we have described, in the deepest sense corresponds to human nature, then here everything seems to be exactly the opposite. This calling contradicts everything given to the person being called. The first thing such a called person says is, as a rule, a refusal. He replies that he simply cannot do what is required of him, for very obvious reasons. I don't think I can remember any contrary cases. Abraham didn't seem to argue. But further... The already elderly Sarah laughs when she is foreshadowed to give birth to a son. The most egregious story is, of course, Jonah. That's how much he resisted, to the point that he got into the fish's belly: but even after that he didn't stop. Remember all these callings - right up to the Annunciation (I hope this does not sound blasphemous). The first word of the Summoned: “But how can I do this? I didn’t know my husband.” Those who are called are called to do things that are incredible to them, to the impossible. “Objectively” impossible. The prophets provide evidence of this impossibility: Jeremiah is young, Moses is tongue-tied...
Why is a person chosen here, as if contrary to his nature and available capabilities? A girl or an old woman - to give birth, a boy - to teach the elders... This, I think, remains a secret. But it is as if the universal plot of calling includes the resistance of the one who is called. For some reason he resists. And he is right in his own way! It is as if a lame man were told to become a dancer, or a mute man to sing an aria. Why not choose more suitable performers for this? And here - in contrast to what we called natural calling - along with calling, another, new human nature is created. He receives everything he needs to fulfill the call. Moses is given the gift of speech, etc. The initial, given properties of a person turn out to be insignificant. Why is that? We can only stop in bewilderment, Indeed: why not choose a brilliant speaker to speak to the people? why not send a less obstinate person who would immediately answer: “Yes, I will go to Nineveh right now and tell them everything.” No, for some reason such a resistant material is almost always chosen. Perhaps, in order to make it more obvious, as they say, the glory of God, the power that is accomplished in powerlessness - here, again, out of nothing, out of dust, man is created, when it is necessary. But perhaps there is another readiness and suitability that a person himself does not know in himself - and on the basis of which he is called... In any case, the biblical stories of calling somehow clarify the highest value with which obedience is endowed in Christianity. The torment of obedience, its labor and mystery lie in the fact that it most often contradicts our existing nature. Our nature, our inclinations repel him: we are told something else! And we cannot say: “Cheers, not me! No, this is not for me, this is for someone else!
This is where I will end.
I. Ponomareva
: Does it mean that if a person does not ask himself the question of his calling, does this mean that he is simply spiritually immature? And vice versa, if he thinks and searches, is this a sign of his spiritual maturity? Is there some kind of pattern here?
Olga Sedakova
: You know, there are very hectic searches. This is obvious in art. I don’t remember which of the wonderful masters said about “searching”: “they search where they need to find.” “They find it” as if by accident. You can “search” for the rest of your life. It happens that such searches are not at all a sign that a person has matured, but just the opposite. In addition, a person can complete his task without any search, without even thinking that he is doing something special. You probably know the well-known story in various Patericon: a great ascetic in the desert at some point decides that he has reached the final heights of spiritual perfection and asks in prayer whether there is anyone who has achieved more? And he hears the answer: “Go to such and such a city and there on such and such a street you will see a shoemaker; Now he has achieved more.” He obeys, finds this shoemaker and asks him about his spiritual exploits. The shoemaker tells him: “I’m not doing anything special.” Later it turns out that what he does without noticing and not considering it a special spiritual matter is the best fulfillment of spiritual requirements. (This plot was repeated in a new way by Leo Tolstoy in “Father Sergius”: remember how Father Sergius visits Pashenka?) This may be the case. A person fulfills a calling without looking for it, without seeing it, without realizing it. And such performance can be rated higher. Apparently because it is completely sincere. That this is the same “full of peace” and “overflowing cup.” Such a measure of dedication that there is no space left for looking at your own actions from the outside.
No, I would not say with all certainty that those who are looking have already woken up, and those who are not looking are sleeping. Probably some other distinction needs to be found for such sleep and awakening.
I. Ponomareva
: Olga Alexandrovna, what laws should a called person live by? If he really once realized that there was no escape?
Olga Sedakova
: I think that he will open them. Will open these laws. He will understand what is harmful and good for him personally (this personal point is very important here). Others, for example, can do this, but for some reason he can’t. He may not even be able to explain to himself why. But from somewhere he knows this very precisely: he knows - or senses (Brodsky said that he is guided by smell, like a dog) where he can violate something that will affect his gift. There is an amazing passage in Tolstoy’s diaries (V.V. Bibikhin often recalled it): “you can kill a person and not commit a sin, but you can bite off a piece of bread so much that it will be a mortal sin.” This is an artist's observation. We know stories, true and apocryphal, about the riotous lives of famous artists. For some reason, these gross violations of morality are not fatally reflected in their works. But there is something that would certainly be reflected, that would distort the very essence of the calling. What is this? I think it’s different in different cases. The ego apparently depends on the very thing that is expected of him, to which he is called. What is needed for this thing is what is required of him.
E. Novikova
: Olga Alexandrovna, do you think this option is possible: a person never found his destined place, like the first step that you named, but at the same time he fulfilled his calling? That is, he fulfilled his spiritual calling, but did not find his destiny.
Olga Sedakova
: I think yes. In this case, we can think that his purpose was a spiritual calling, and not something else. About that shoemaker from Paterik, whom we remembered, it is not said that he was amazing, the best shoemaker in the city. It is said that he gave away the money he earned from this craft.
E. Novikova
: And, for example, when a person’s purpose conflicts with his calling?
Olga Sedakova
: Yes, thank you, your question reminded me that I have not yet said one important thing that I was going to say. If this is a purpose (natural attraction, talent, ability to find one’s place in life and be productive in this place), if it is mistaken for a spiritual calling itself, which often happens, this is a very dangerous thing. Then serving your destiny, your gift, turns into idolatry. And idols, as Averintsev liked to repeat, require human sacrifices. There is an interesting story by the young Pasternak, “Parallel Octaves,” about an organist who, engrossed in his playing, kills his own son. A late echo of the romantic cult of the artist. No matter how they discuss the story of Abraham’s sacrifice, which is beyond human understanding, this is a completely different matter. Pasternak's artist does not know what he is doing. Before any demand for sacrifice, he is ready to allow his loved ones to do anything for the sake of his service. The deification of art, like any other creation of idols, ends badly. But I am sure that the artists who managed to create something great created it precisely because they did not worship art or creativity as such, but considered everything else and everyone else only a means or material for it. This kind of worship is characteristic precisely of people like Salieri, the half-called.
You are following a dream
If you like accounting, work for a firm that offers financial reporting services. Do you like the law? Look for a job in the legislature. If you are an engineer, build! Do you like finance? Get a job at a bank or investment fund. If you take advantage of every opportunity to work in a field that you love, you will be successful professionally.
You are constantly in the thick of things
You won't have a successful career if you keep a low profile. There are supporting roles in every sector of the industry, but if you intend to do something significant and make your mark, you need to be in the thick of things.
Those who are dedicated to their work, constantly improve their profession, take part in conferences and seminars, learn new things, and are interested in innovative technologies and discoveries in the professional field of activity. There is always movement around them, so there is no stagnation in their work. Such employees are effective, reach great heights, and the results of their activities always deserve attention.
You learn, grow and experiment. As Wendall Holmes wrote: “Alas, those who never sing will die with music in their souls.” A good career tests and develops us every day. We suddenly suddenly find out that we can hit high notes, and this is wonderful.
Small academic dictionary
vocation
-I, Wed
1. outdated
Action according to verb. summon (in 1 value).
- Tell me, what spells have power over you? - Everyone is good: I’m ready to fall from the sky for all callings. Pushkin, Sketches for a plan for Faust.
The mullah left the alkoran, And his calling was not heard. Lermontov, Izmail-Bey.
2.
Tendency, ability to do something. business, occupation.
[Nekhlyudov] quit his service, deciding that he had a vocation for painting. L. Tolstoy, Resurrection.
- If with your
If you are unable to pass the exam, then obviously you have neither the desire nor the calling to be a doctor. Chekhov, A boring story.
||
Purpose, purpose.
“My calling is different,” Princess Marya thought to herself, “my calling is to be happy with a different happiness, the happiness of love and self-sacrifice.” L. Tolstoy, War and Peace.
To awaken, encourage, strengthen, inspire a person, to remind him that he is the force that creates life - this is the high moral calling of the theater. Yuryev, Notes.
Do you miss work
Mondays should not overshadow your life. Anyone who loves their job begins to miss it on the weekends and, like Warren Buffett, happily goes to the office. If the start of a new work week is a small tragedy for you, this is an alarming sign. Perhaps you need to change your field of activity.
This doesn't mean you have to become a workaholic. There is a gulf between a specialist who loves his job and a workaholic. It would seem that two employees are working tirelessly, but the difference between them is colossal. They have different motivations: one works with enthusiasm, so he is passionate about what he does. Others are driven by fear, which appears due to various reasons. For a workaholic, work is simply a way to get away from problems.
Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary
CALLING, vocations, cf. (book).
1. only units Action under Ch. call to call, call, invitation (·obsolete·torzh.). Come to the friendly calling, come, O young traveler.
2. An inclination, an internal attraction to some business, some profession (with the possession or belief that one has the necessary abilities for this). Feel a calling to science. A calling to music. Follow your calling. Artist by vocation.
| Role, task, purpose. “You nobly understood the calling of an actress.” Nekrasov. “Oh, who will now remind a person of his high calling?” Nekrasov. The historical vocation of the proletariat is to build a socialist society.
Carrying out your responsibilities makes you feel like you belong
Choose a field of activity in which you will feel like a fish in water. Then you won't have to make an effort to demonstrate your professionalism. In particular, natural extroverts find energy in social situations, but not everyone does. If Bill Clinton comes alive on stage, drawing energy from the audience, an introvert feels terrible under the spotlight. Public attention sucks all the energy out of him. Such people need a lot of effort to overcome themselves and perform on stage, or give a speech at a gala reception. They prefer privacy, one-on-one conversation. Each of us manifests himself most fully in different conditions and circumstances. Some people need full houses and applause, others can concentrate only when left alone. A career develops new skills, but does not change character. Perhaps you will learn to speak publicly, and public activity will become familiar to you. But the craving for solitude will still remain.
