In any person, two fundamental aspirations that are in dialectical contradiction are always fighting: for self-preservation (security) and for establishing oneself in this world. The first entails such qualities as caution, gentleness, compliance, sensitivity, which allow a person to feel safe in society, making him socially comfortable. The second encourages a person to do what he himself needs first of all, allows him to manifest himself in one way or another in this world, to assert his existence despite the threat of non-existence that constantly hangs over a person. There are a large number of concepts corresponding to this second principle, such as vitality, aggressiveness, libido, will to live, courage to be. They are not identical to each other, each has its own characteristics and shades, but in my opinion, they have more in common than differences: they all affirm life. Life is not a simple existence, the maintenance of homeostasis, which is also available to plants, but an individual life that makes a person someone, allowing one to feel oneself living and not existing. And one of the most common obstacles to allowing oneself to be alive is the internalized Many people have been prohibited from being aggressive since childhood. People are often taught from a young age (and/or demonstrated by example) that when choosing between themselves and others, they should always choose the other, and if somehow it turned out that the choice was made in favor of themselves, then they must be punished feeling guilty. This life strategy makes life quite safe, saving a person from direct conflicts, disputes, struggles, but it leads to many fundamental problems: since the internal desire to do what one wants does not disappear anywhere, due to the ban on expressing aggression externally, it turns against the person himself , turning into auto-aggression, which can manifest itself, for example, in various somatizations (the prohibition on understanding and externally expressing one’s desires is one of the main causes of psychosomatic disorders); to the inability to achieve one’s goals, since in order to achieve anything significant in life you need to have an unblocked opportunity to put your desires no lower than the desires of another and a willingness to go into conflict in order to defend these desires; to the gradual loss of the feeling of life itself, to depression as a subjectively felt opportunity to only exist, but not to be. Naturally, the other extreme, expressed in the impossibility or unwillingness to take into account the needs, interests and desires of others is also dangerous. It is dangerous both for the individual himself, but also even more so for society, as a result of which increased attention is paid to it, often inadequate for ordinary people not prone to psychopathy, and especially for sensitive and vulnerable people. Attention leading to self-prohibitions, self-restraints, self-censorship, depriving oneself of the right to be. There is such a common expression that exists in various variations: “the freedom of one person ends where the freedom of another begins.” However, why is the freedom of one person declared more significant than the freedom of another person who said that one must give up one’s freedom as soon as there is the slightest threat that someone else may not like it? Unfortunately, such radical simplifications of the world of human relationships, reducing them to some ready-made formulas, only contribute to the neuroticization (at best) of individuals and society as a whole, since suppressed aggressiveness always turns against the most suppressive (individual or society as a whole). A healthy choice is a choice that takes into account all the realistically possible consequences - in each specific case. A choice that refuses the reduction of being in the name of security, the price of which is life.