Aren’t some aspirations more noble and laudatory than others? For example, are the goals of the person who aspires to great deeds in public service nobler than those who just want to satisfy their own baser appetites? And, if he achieves some of them, isn’t he more successful than the person whose goals impact only himself?
Then, there is the question of process versus achievement. I’ve often heard people say something like this: “I’m doing exactly what I love to do.” Is that person, by virtue of the process, even if he achieves nothing, more successful than the person who finds a cure for lung cancer, but whose goal was to find the cure for all cancers? In other words, is success defined more by the process and less by the achievement? If you are in a
process that you enjoy, are you therefore, successful? Likewise, if someone functions at 100 percent of their abilities, even if they are reduced, is he more successful than the exceptionally talented person who uses only a fraction of his talents, yet contributes significantly?
What about morality and ethics?
Back to Hitler. Successful by the “goal” standard, but a poster child for almost everyone’s standard of immorality. If you achieve all your goals, make a huge contribution to the betterment of the world, but trample on people and cause pain by immoral and unethical behavior, are you still successful?
What about
the cost? Some success comes with a cost that is out of balance with the resulting achievement. For example, one way to achieve success as a sales person is to work longer. If you work 18 hours a day, destroy your marriage, alienate your kids, and ruin your health, has the cost been worth it? I believe success implies something of a balance.
Then, of course, there is the spiritual component. Should success be measured in worldly terms, or on a grander scale? Success in worldly terms... READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE