To You, What Defines "Success" in Life?

[Quagmire]

I think anybody is a success to whatever degree they're able to stay true to themselves.

 

[Vinayaka]

A friend was talking to me about his views on success, and he said that to him, success meant obtaining money, power, and influence. He then asked me how I defined "success," and I said, "I believe each person gets to define what success is based on their goals in life, whether those are based on one's religion, career, relationships, or anything else. For me, success would be contentment and security." (Edit: By "security," I mean mental and emotional security, as I clarified in post #6.)

He countered with the argument that even if I became content and secure, someone with more power and influence could simply harm me or be able to impose on my life, while I wouldn't have enough power or influence of my own to stop it. So he believed my definition was lacking. I said that there would always be a more powerful and influential person or entity out there, though—even if one were a multibillionaire official or celebrity—and that always anticipating someone else to harm us and thinking of the various hypotheticals and scenarios in which that could or could not happen wouldn't be healthy or realistic.

Also, I mentioned my belief that "success" could be compartmentalized based on one's goals: someone could be successful, based on achieving their goals, in their career but not in their social or romantic life, and vice versa.

We didn't end up agreeing, but we both found it a thought-provoking discussion.

What do you personally think defines success in life? Is being wealthy synonymous with being successful in life, in your view? Is having a robust social circle and several or more friends who are willing to go to great lengths for you synonymous with being successful in life, even if you're not wealthy? Why or why not, in either or both cases?

Discuss.

Definitely not monetary wealth or fame for me. Things like contentedness, friendship, character, are far more important. I've heard simple words at funerals that sum it up: "He/she was a great neigbour." or several other such simple statements about the quality of the person.

 

[Quintessence]

In your view, if contentment is not conditional on anything in particular, what reason is there for one to pursue goals or seek to change some aspects of their life? Is discontentment a necessary condition for seeking change?

The idea that discontentment is needed for change is odd to me. Partly because change is simply always happening regardless of how an individual feels about anything. And partly because cultivating your way of life is an ever ongoing process and journey which inherently involves change. Maybe it's a OBOD Druid thing in particular, because this tradition of Druidry teaches about the cultivation of Awen. There are different ways to interpret what Awen is, but loosely speaking the Awen is the flow of spirited inspiration. A sort of creative muse. A drop of enlightenment. You learn to recognize it and just follow that muse when it speaks to you. The result is something of a charmed life, where the spark of something interesting carries you on a journey to something new.

To give an example, there's a book I've been reading lately that was the direct result of the spark of Awen flowing into my awareness. This book kept being mentioned to me by multiple people and finally I threw my hands in the air and said "okay, I get it... the gods are telling me something here, I will go out to the local book store and purchase it today!" So I did, and I've been reading it slowly, bit by bit. To let it's lessons sink in and to settle. It's been changing how I think about some things. None of this journey came out of being discontent, or caring about setting goals or making change. It came out of following the currents of inspiration and just... being myself.

What if having a robust social circle is a personal goal that one doesn't see as a universal measure of success either?

In keeping with the theme of Awen, the Awen comes to different folks in different ways. That's one of the things that is taught. So you accept that different folks find fulfillment in different ways. It's part of what contributes to the wonderful cultural diversity we have. Even if someone did see this or something else as a universal measure of success, I'd kinda just shrug my shoulders at it. You do you, as it were. Others don't need my permission or agreement to be who they are or who they must be.

Why would it be selfish or narcissistic if 1) the willingness to go far for a friend were mutual, and 2) it were defined as a personal goal or a personal rather than universal measure of success according to that goal?

Well, to clarify where I was going with that for a moment? The prevailing cultural currents of America are very individualistic instead of collectivistic. That impacts how "success" is thought of - it is almost always understood in terms of personal success rather than community success or contributions to something greater than oneself. So when I remarked that cultivating a robust social circle seemed like a selfish way of looking at it, I asked myself this - what is this social circle doing for the community rather than yourself? Okay, great, you've got a support network. How are you helping those outside of your circle? What are you doing for something greater? If you are only succeeding in supporting yourselves and your tribe, what about everything and everyone else? Why do we so often define success in very selfish terms instead of in very community-oriented, giving terms?

Remember that book I mentioned I was reading? Considering this angle was in part inspired by that book. It's written by an indigenous author from an indigenous perspective - indigenous peoples focus on community rather than ego and individual. The colonialist culture would look at a monoculture farm field with high yields and call it "successful." The indigenous mind would call it a disaster of selfishness that doesn't serve the land or anything greater. But I digress...

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

The prevailing cultural currents of America are very individualistic instead of collectivistic. That impacts how "success" is thought of - it is almost always understood in terms of personal success rather than community success or contributions to something greater than oneself.

In Patia, people have been sighting a white calf for centuries.

(According to historians, were it not for the salt in the soil, the valley would have been incapable of supporting cattle.)

It represents prosperity, and is believed by historians to be related to the Golden Calf in the Holy Bible.

One of the gifts, or powers, offered by the devil is the ability to eat more beef than an ordinary human being would be capable of. (Gluttony is my favorite superpower. But it’s one of the 7 deadly sins, and tends to clog my arteries.)

It must have been very frustrating for the slaves living nearby, who were starving.

Immigrants and refugees were attracted from as far away as Panama, by the conspicuous consumption, and the freedom, which made the palenque stronger and more prosperous, and contributed to its survival.

 

[Trailblazer]

What do you personally think defines success in life? Is being wealthy synonymous with being successful in life, in your view? Is having a robust social circle and several or more friends who are willing to go to great lengths for you synonymous with being successful in life, even if you're not wealthy? Why or why not, in either or both cases?

Discuss.

Th answers on this thread really highlight how different we all are.

I never think in terms of success so I had to look the word up to answer this.

What is the real meaning of success?

Success (the opposite of failure) is the status of having achieved and accomplished an aim or objective. Being successful means the achievement of desired visions and planned goals.Feb 3, 2016

The Meaning of Success and How to Define Success in Life - LinkedIn

The only thing I ever set out to accomplish in my life was acquiring college degrees and I succeeded in acquiring all that I st out to acquire.
Actually, I just fell into college after high school and I was not goal-oriented. I just went to college because that was what was expected in my family given I come from a highly educated family where education was valued. The last two degrees I acquired were a passion, connected with a goal of changing careers, although I never actually changed careers after about nine years of study.

If success is measured by career success and material gain I have been very successful. I feel somewhat good about that because it has given me financial security for life, a, but that i only one aspect of existence. For the last 10 years I have shifted my priorities so now I measure success in terms of my spiritual growth, the acquisition of spiritual qualities, which means improving my character. I always wanted to help other people but those careers did not work out so now I try to help others just by sharing and being their friends, which happens mostly online.

I also measure success by nearness to God so my two goals in life are becoming more spiritual and becoming closer to God. Both of these are works in progress. I do not feel close to God but that doesn't mean I am not close. Feelings can be misleading and I think only God knows if I am close or far.

I wanted to add one final note. I don't think success is necessarily equated with happiness. A person can be successful in achieving material goals but not be happy, or a person who never achieved material goals can be very happy. Also, I don't think relationships in and of themselves lead to happiness. They can contribute to happiness but a person can be unhappy even in a marriage with children and the whole nine yards.

As the saying goes, happiness is an inside job. Certainly things in the environment can lead to happiness or unhappiness but ideally I think I should be able to rise above those if I have spiritual happiness as I define it, and gtat is my goal which is far out on the horizon!

 

[Brickjectivity]

You can define success in terms of hopefulness. The more hope you feel and the more often you feel it the more successful you are. If you always feel hopeful and motivated, then that adds to your success.

Failure can be measured in hopeless feeling. For example if I can never see the end of trouble and can't imagine an end to trouble, then that adds to the failure I experience.

 

[LuisDantas]

Money is a nice thing to have, if you can't achieve anything more useful or more meaningful - or if you have no idea of what those would even be.

But true success in life is mainly a matter of having reliable, worthy relationships and activities. There is no true substitute for those.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What do you personally think defines success in life? Is being wealthy synonymous with being successful in life, in your view? Is having a robust social circle and several or more friends who are willing to go to great lengths for you synonymous with being successful in life, even if you're not wealthy? Why or why not, in either or both cases?

Discuss.

I think a successful life is having strong social bonds with loved ones and your community, having the ability to provide for yourself and your family, a good reputation/social trust, a job/career that is fulfilling and you are passionate for and inspired by, a home that truly is a home and to die content with love surrounding you.

No offense but your friend sounds immature and he has a lot to learn. Money doesn't mean anything, especially these days with worthless fiat money. Have fun chasing that phantom; it can be snatched from you at any moment. Also, true power comes from within, not lording it over others.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think it's defined by the individual. "Success" is a vague, subjective, and relative term which can be viewed and defined in different ways.

I would not agree that success means to have enough influence or power to stop someone more powerful from harming one. Even kings with a slew of palace guards could still be assassinated by a lone individual. If success requires invulnerability, then no one can ever be truly successful. If success requires that one be a "world champion," then only a few will be successful.

I would say Julius Caesar demonstrates no one is successful. For even those full of military and political might can be ended with treachery.

 

[Stevicus]

I would say Julius Caesar demonstrates no one is successful. For even those full of military and political might can be ended with treachery.

That's true, although it's also interesting to note that here, even 2000 years after Caesar, he's one of the few historical figures that most people would remember from that time. Being remembered might also be considered a mark of success, even if they meet a somewhat ignoble end. Even if they're remembered for something bad.

 

[Viker]

Success? Not getting yourself killed. And not spending life sapping the life force and life savings off of others.

Other than that, success is always going to be one of those subjective things.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's true, although it's also interesting to note that here, even 2000 years after Caesar, he's one of the few historical figures that most people would remember from that time. Being remembered might also be considered a mark of success, even if they meet a somewhat ignoble end. Even if they're remembered for something bad.

In that regard I'm glad in retrospect that surviving poets and playwrites would be regarded as successful, as they very rarely had anything but the bottom rungs of society in past times.
And interesting to point out ones likes Aristophanes could be called very successful given the sex-strike women went in the play Lysistrata is something real world women have utilized to successful ends.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Late Fragment

And did you get what
you wanted from this life, even so?
I did.
And what did you want?
To call myself beloved, to feel myself
beloved on the earth.

- Raymond Carver