To feel the ability you are showing Is there a contradiction in this statement?

There is no contradiction in this sentence to feel the ability you have shown, the meaning of this sentence is to say that you want to feel the ability you have shown and feel the charm of what you have shown.

There is no contradiction in this statement, and the word "feeling" is used to describe the ability you demonstrate.

There is certainly no contradiction in this sentence, and I think this statement is relatively normal, because we should just feel our own abilities, so that we can make ourselves feel better.

To feel the charm of the deepest display, there is no contradiction in this sentence, because to a certain extent, the wisdom is deep, and there is a certain ability to express and show.

To feel the ability you show, there is no contradiction in this sentence, you have an ability when you do things, but you have to feel it, and you can improve and correct it in the future.

Now there's still her shadow, she just doesn't understand you, she loses someone who loves her, you lose someone to love.

To feel the ability you are showing Is there a contradiction in this statement? There is actually nothing wrong with this sentence, but it can't be a feeling.

Feel what you're capable of. Personally, I think there is no contradiction in this sentence, and the sentence is relatively smooth.

To feel the ability you are demonstrating, this sentence is contradictory, but the bet is not smooth.

There is no contradiction in this sentence to feel the ability you have shown, and you can feel the charm of your own progress.

There is no contradiction in this sentence to feel the ability generated by oneself, but you need to have this ability to feel it.

Feeling the ability I have demonstrated, I don't think there is a contradiction in this sentence.

For the understanding of this sentence.

Generally, no.

What a unified standard.

Except for a typo "of" ("de" should be used, because "very tacit" is a supplement to the predicate "cooperate"), there is no grammatical problem or contradiction in the sentence "we cooperate very tacitly".

Although this sentence may seem a bit convoluted, he does say a truth.

People who understand me don't have to explain, what they are saying is to let that person be good friends with you, then he knows your thoughts, behaviors, habits, and preferences clearly, even if you hate a person, or like a person, you can see your attitude from one of your eye movements, your gestures, so even if something happens that makes you misunderstand, he will not let you explain too much, and he can also understand what you mean.

For example, your best friend and your brother, even if there is a conflict between you and others, in fact, you are the one who is wrong, but they will also look towards you, because they know that out of friendship, they want to help you, and you are not the kind of person who is willing to pay, so whether you are reasonable or not, they will stand by your side.

If a person doesn't know you well enough and he misunderstands you, then you don't need to explain anything to them, because his first impression of you is already broken, and if you still want to work hard to change his impression of you and make some useless efforts, then you are really just working in vain, because they won't see your efforts and don't want to change your impression in their minds.

Therefore, instead of caring so much about other people's eyes, it is better to be yourself and take care of the people around you.

This sentence seems to be very tongue-twisting, but in fact, if you think about it carefully, you will feel that it is quite easy to understand. "I don't have to explain" means that for those who know themselves deeply, no matter what happens, they will always choose to believe in themselves, and they are on their side, we don't need to give a very formal explanation of what we do to make them understand, because they understand themselves, so even if they don't explain, they will still believe in themselves. "Why explain if you don't understand me" means that for those who don't understand themselves at all, don't understand what kind of person they are, and will question and don't believe in themselves, we don't need to explain to them in vain what we want to do or what is difficult to say.

Wouldn't it be a pity to miss such a miss. I think as long as the other party chooses to believe you after you explain, then this is enough, if after you explain hard, the other party still doubts and speculates about you, then you can stop pestering and turn away in style. However, if we don't even give the other party an explanation, and we have to be stingy with a time for the other party to recognize the truth, we will inevitably be too impersonal and too demanding of the other party.

"If you understand me, you don't have to explain, why explain if you don't understand me", this sentence is understood and worshiped by many young people, thinking that this sentence is very reasonable. In the past, I did think this sentence was very handsome, and it seemed to be very correct. But in my opinion now, this is indeed a complete "nonsense".

Since people who understand themselves don't need to explain, and people who don't understand themselves don't need to explain, are there still people in this world who need to explain? If this person understands, then there is no need to explain, this person does not understand, and there is no need to explain, so what is the meaning of the existence of this "explanation"? Explanation is not just to make people who don't understand understand their own thoughts.

And if you don't explain it all the time, how can you let others understand you?

I think those who "understand me" should mean those who believe in themselves. For example, our own parents and the like, we are more than ten or twenty years older than our parents, and there are many things that they don't understand. But although parents can't understand their children's thoughts, they still believe in their children.

No matter how much the child tries to explain it, the parents may never be able to understand it. That is, we don't need to let our parents fully understand, but let our actual actions and results tell our parents that we have lived up to their trust. But it's not completely unexplainable, we need to let parents know that we are acting right and right.

Of course, this also includes other relatives and friends.

And those who don't understand are those who don't matter. When you do something by yourself, there are always many people who don't understand, and some people even question their own behavior. But some people's incomprehension does not have any effect on our behavior, and sometimes we spend a lot of energy and time to explain, but others still cannot understand.

At this time, we should give up decisively, it is good for others to understand, but if we don't understand, we can't hinder ourselves.

Just as, that sentence, understand my quick explanation, if you don't understand me, why bother to explain, this sentence is very right, those who understand us, even if we don't say it, don't do anything, they will know what we mean, what we want to do, what we want to do, they won't get angry because of a sentence, because they already know very well, what kind of people we are, because they know that the original intention of our words is not bad, we don't have the intention of attacking, we really say this matter again, And those who don't understand us, and even deliberately distort our meaning, are themselves problematic, no matter how we say it, no matter how we explain it, it will only make them think that we are really justified, they will only agree more, the kind of thinking in their hearts, will not say anything, things that are beneficial to you, so, why do we have to explain to them, it took a long time, and still did not get good, as long as the people who understand us understand us, it is good, if they don't understand, they don't have to bother to let them understand, Otherwise, they will be tired, and we will be even more tired, life in the world, we are happy, the most important thing, caring too much, wanting to have too much, is not a good thing, why bother, let our own life be so tired? Life is all about enjoyment, learn to enjoy life, and live a different life.

There is no contradiction, because winning is not only based on technology, but also on many factors.

Team strength, luck, the psychological quality of the other party, your skill is one of the aspects, but if you are stronger in other aspects, then it is reasonable to win.

According to your description, there is no contradiction in this statement. The first half of the sentence is about individual skills, which is the point of view expressed from the individual, and the second half of the sentence we still won, which is the team strength. It shows that team strength is the last word in the competition, and no matter how good the individual skill is, it cannot determine the final victory.

"Although the technology was good, we still won. "It's not a contradiction, it's just luck!

Freedom in life is relative. It's great to be able to do whatever you want, it's impossible to do whatever you don't want to do, you don't want to coax your wife, you don't want to pay taxes, you don't want to please customers, you don't want to greet your child's teacher with a smile... **Don't dare to think about what you don't do, don't do anything, the former sentence is an ideal, and the latter sentence is delusional.

In a collective human society, you can't just do what you don't want to do.

Use the analogy of finding a girlfriend:

The greatest freedom in life is not to achieve the goal when you want to find Lin Chiling as your girlfriend; But when you don't want to go to Sister Feng, no one forces you to find it.

Literally, the two sentences before and after have the same meaning and belong to sick sentences. From a deep level, both sentences are active sentences, indicating that the initiative is in their own hands. Therefore, it is concluded that the two sentences are contradictory.

The former refers to the fact that man succumbs to the drive of instinct and simply satisfies his various desires.

The latter refers to the fact that people make judgments based on reason, can resist their inappropriate desires, and do what their reason tells them to do and what is worth doing.

For example, you should learn to pursue knowledge, and your intellect tells you that it is more worthwhile to do, but your desire is to play games, and if you can't restrain your desires, you are not free, and you can choose what your intellect tells you, and if you don't play games, you are free.

Of course, this is premised on your acknowledging the distinction between instinct and reason.

Life depends on how you understand it, how it is right, it's just that you are in a different position.

Combined with your own reality, use the philosophical "contradiction principle" you have learned to talk about your "This is the best era too."

The idea is that people tend to want people to see what they didn't see before, what they lacked before

There is no contradiction, voluntariness is the subjective will of people, and freedom is the personal activity. For example, if you are offered a high-paying job, you are definitely willing, but not so free, but you still accept it in your heart.

Not contradictory. Voluntary means willing. Unfree means not free spatially.

Combined with the actual scenario, I volunteered to join the army, but enlisting in the army is really not free.