Half-unfilled

Is the glass half-empty or half-full?

A quick look around the Web shows it is interpreted philosophically, psychologically, or most commonly—rhetorically.

People who are fond of pigeon-holing people like not only to distinguish optimists from pessimists, but they also like to differentiate people by finer categories depending on how they answer that question. Or, how you think they would answer the question, or how they should answer the question depending on how you judge their personalities or by some other characteristics you perceived.

Given that a glass is before you and it is exactly filled to half its capacity with water. To be dramatic you would say it contained life-giving water.

Conceptually you could say one half is full of water and other half full of air so it is always full. For that matter the glass is technically always full even if it is filled to one-quarter or one-eight of its capacity with water or none at all!

But you could see the difference in effects of the same half-full/half-empty glass on differently positioned fish. Clearly the fish on the right is doing better. If we imagine two mermaids instead of two fish, we may be tempted to say that they both would do well. If it were two human-beings the effect would be reversed in comparison with the fish. If this last scenario is interpreted literally, a zero-filled glass would have to be the blessed situation.

In real life you often see an advantageously positioned individual or group furious about their efforts or sacrifices being allegedly wasted or under-recognized by insolent lots. They seemed genuinely frustrated by this exhibition of utter ingratitude. The self-proclaimed benefactors would advertise their half-full efforts as windfalls and would demand matching level of gratitude from the recipients.

On the other hand, if recipients were not getting the full glass of water they deserve, or entitled to receive, or mandated by their rights, isn't it natural to complain?