I understand where you`re coming from, I scanned the article, and
you`ve made your position clear in the just-previous post. If I
understand you correctly, you`re essentially saying that success is
defined by terms more broad than only money. We agree.
My first career was as a professional musician, and I did that for 20
years. Money was a driver, but it wasn`t at all the measure of my
success. I left the business realizing that I didn`t have the creative
portfolio in music to be what I considered as a success.
The argument with BestHealth`s proposition is that regardless of
anyone`s idea of success, it must be specific. It can`t be so vague
that it provides no "map," or direction toward that success. To say
that success is having goals and reaching them is the semantic and
formal definition, but it doesn`t have a practical application without
So the underlying question is, "What specific goals do you have that,
when you attain them, you`ll judge yourself to be successful?
BestHealth`s point was that success is based soley on the person who
sets their goals. Okay fine, but that doesn`t explain what success
"Bankrupt" can be literal, or it can be metaphorical. We`ve (most of
us) heard the expressions morally bankrupt or spiritually bankrupt. The
easier point to make tends to be financially bankrupt, but it`s all
part of the same thing---reaching an end point.
Perhaps it`s better to say that financial success is one "aspect" of
success. Happiness is a dynamic involving five or six particular
"channels" of life. So too, success is a dynamic measure. It moves
along, changing as we grow and develop.
Going deeper than that, my passion in life is to defend the philosophy
of idealism and to structure a philosophy of individualism. My chosen
pathway is through semantics. Modern western culture, under the
influences of deconstructionism, has reduced people`s capacity to
reason by saying that "anything can mean anything."
Concepts, high-level abstractions, and such things as "success" or
"failure" do indeed have a specific definition. That isn`t a "narrow"
definition, it`s simply the definition. The problems happen when people
get upset by the constraints of a rational definition and try to change
or bend the definition to fit whatever happens to feel good for them at
Your article points out that success is not only measured by financial
gain, and I agree (as I said). I`m saying that success does have a
narrow and clear definition, and that it`s a measure, not an entity or
attribute. An "inch" has a very narrow definition, but the way we use
inches is entirely up to each of us, depending on our particular needs.
To use that inch in relation to your article: When we want to know how
long something is, we can, if we choose, use inches as a measure.
Modern society tells us that we only can use inches, but that fails to
account for feet, yards, miles, meters, centimeters, furlongs, light
years, and other varied forms of measure.
The analogue is that money is to inches as success is to length. :-) That`s my main point.