What does success, mean?

[dimreepr]

The obvious answer might be, something like, my continued existence or winning something over other's.

The other obvious answer might be, something like, my continued validity in the eyes of other's.

So the answer is clearly on spectrum between the two; which further focuses the question to:

what's the minimum level of success, acceptable too both? 

 

[iNow]

The definition of success is embedded in the objective. it’s context dependent.

If I’m thirsty, success is getting a drink of water. If I’m driving down the highway and need to poop, success is finding a place to do it outside the car and not in my pants. If you’re a new mother, sometimes success is getting the baby to stay asleep for more than 20 minutes at a time.

Sometimes success is just taking that next breath or that next step. It depends. 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

The definition of success is embedded in the objective. it’s context dependent.

If I’m thirsty, success is getting a drink of water. If I’m driving down the highway and need to poop, success is finding a place to do it outside the car and not in my pants. If you’re a new mother, sometimes success is getting the baby to stay asleep for more than 20 minutes at a time.

Sometimes success is just taking that next breath or that next step. It depends. 

Stop spoiling the party, I didn't laugh at your joke... 🧐

[swansont]

Success is subjective, though some try to make it objective.

The question is insufficiently defined. As iNow had described.

[geordief]

Success is defined in terms of context and whether progress is made in the intended direction( interesting that the ancient Greek word for " to sin" was , to an approximation "aparthein "** which also meant "to miss the mark" 

But more than one step can be considered and after a long period of developments one can reassess how "successful " one"'s actions have been.

 

The criteria changes over time.

 

We fought WW2 for democracy and now we have Putin,Trump et al.

 

Should we have done better (been more successful) to have  lost the war?

** a very wide approximation from ancient memory  - perhaps it was "amartanein" 

Edited October 14, 2022 by geordief

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Stop spoiling the party, I didn't laugh at your joke... 🧐

You saw a joke in iNow's reply? I think over-sensitivity spoils more parties than jokes.

 

 

I don't think of "success" as a spectrum, especially one that doesn't include a top end. As iNow mentions, it's all about context; the situation dictates how successful one's skills will prove to be. 

Success on a spectrum implies there's an overall guideline that governs us all. Is someone more successful than you because they work at a bigger company, or because they make more money, or because they own their business? I think there are some things that we work harder on because it means more to us to be successful at those things, such as a profession or a relationship. Others we can still be successful at without working as hard, such as maintaining the yard around our home. 

As to a minimum amount of success, it's still contextual. If it's my profession, I need to feed, clothe, and house myself and my family from the proceeds. If it's the yard around my home, there are community guidelines that tell me the minimum I have to do to be successful in compliance.

[TheVat]

Defining such words nowadays points to one of the core challenges postmodernism has made to the classic Enlightenment idea that we can determine objective truths and arrive at principles that may be universally applied.  IOW, such terms as "success" underscore the subjectivity of their use, and their critical dependence on cultural norms.  If we use it in the larger sense, i.e. success in life, then it becomes clear there is no epistemological height that would allow us to determine what is best - no objective set of facts is going to sort out evidence and decide for all which life is best.  Is the monk more successful than the wealthy merchant, is the physician more successful than the mechanic?  Depends on all these cultural, or maybe subcultural, sets of priorities and valuations.  

I don't think postmodernism was correct in its attacks on science, but I think it did take Enlightenment assumptions of universal ethical and moral principles and ask hard questions, especially when one particular society could have dominance and global power and sort of erase other cultures.  That's not a good sort of success.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

I don't think postmodernism was correct in its attacks on science, but I think it did take Enlightenment assumptions of universal ethical and moral principles and ask hard questions, especially when one particular society could have dominance and global power and sort of erase other cultures.

Sorry to butt in, but the first part of your sentence is of great interest to me, specifically in relation to the quest for reality. I am not sure whether it warrants a new thread, but I came (mostly) to the conclusion that postmodernist views are crucial to integrity of science. Science needs to be provisional, i.e. ready to accept revisions when warranted. It works under the implicit assumption that a) there is an objective reality but also that b) our work only provides approximations of said reality. Not all approximations are equal, though some (I think erroneously) assume that a postmodernism would assume such a nihilistic view.

Ultimately science is a construct, built from elements of reality and what the modernist view got wrong is that it confused the model we built with how reality really is. Postmodernism added the layer of scrutiny and  nuance that we desperately needed in many areas of science that we were lacking before. The most notable example I can thinks of is the rigid characterization of human races, for example. A fluid representation of genetic boundaries makes much more sense, despite the fact that it broke the rules of species and sub-species definitions of the well-ordered "enlightened" world.

In a simplified way I see it reflected in an individual's journey in scientific learning. You start of with simple rules and categories that you learn and internalize. But the more you specialize, the more you recognize the nuances and the wobbly bits of the simplified models. You keep using them, as long as they are useful, but may find yourself abandoning them to various degrees to be able to integrate your findings. You might end up with parallel models of the same system, depending on what aspects of your system you are looking at.

[Peterkin]

Success - the achievement of a goal; the acquisition of a desired object or attainment of an objective.

Survival - a series of successes that outnumber the failures. 

[TheVat]

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

...I am not sure whether it warrants a new thread, but I came (mostly) to the conclusion that postmodernist views are crucial to integrity of science. Science needs to be provisional, i.e. ready to accept revisions when warranted. It works under the implicit assumption that a) there is an objective reality but also that b) our work only provides approximations of said reality. Not all approximations are equal, though some (I think erroneously) assume that a postmodernism would assume such a nihilistic view.

I agree that many postmodern thinkers were engaging in a useful interrogation of science and its methods and choices of study.  I was directing my earlier remark at the branch of postmodernism that construed science as a politically driven "metanarrative" that has too sweeping an explanation of how reality works.  Thinkers like Lyotard (or Foucault, who rejected any chance of fundamental principles to discover truth) went too far, imo, in their characterization of knowledge as intrinsically political and ruled by a group in power.  He and others seemed to say that science simply could get no foothold in objective truth and all its aims and findings should be subject to radical skepticism.  Attacking the complacency of modernism doesn't have to mean dismissing the quest for solid models of objective reality.

And, for sure, I think the PM scrutiny of areas like race or intelligence (IQ, e.g.) or how minds work, or realist theories of quantum physics, is incredibly valuable.  Your example is one where PM critique was sorely needed.  

And yes, possibly this derails the topic, but what fun!  😀

[dimreepr]

22 hours ago, Phi for All said:

You saw a joke in iNow's reply? I think over-sensitivity spoils more parties than jokes.

No, I thought I saw a joke in my reply; luckily, the success of my joke's is not a measure of my success, as me; apologies @iNow.

22 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I don't think of "success" as a spectrum, especially one that doesn't include a top end. As iNow mentions, it's all about context; the situation dictates how successful one's skills will prove to be. 

 Isn't the top end, the continued existence of me?

22 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Success on a spectrum implies there's an overall guideline that governs us all. Is someone more successful than you because they work at a bigger company, or because they make more money, or because they own their business? I think there are some things that we work harder on because it means more to us to be successful at those things, such as a profession or a relationship. Others we can still be successful at without working as hard, such as maintaining the yard around our home. 

As to a minimum amount of success, it's still contextual. If it's my profession, I need to feed, clothe, and house myself and my family from the proceeds. If it's the yard around my home, there are community guidelines that tell me the minimum I have to do to be successful in compliance.

I see the minimum amount of success as, continuing to want to be here today.

 

 

15 hours ago, TheVat said:

And yes, possibly this derails the topic, but what fun!  😀

I'm not complaining, it's interesting to think of thinking as having a before and after...

[Sensei]

 

On 10/14/2022 at 1:23 PM, dimreepr said:

What does success, mean?

Eternal life or rather eternal existence.. ?

..in the midst of artificial intelligence that will ask the question "the meaning of life?" or other mortal beings asking questions in a scientific forum like "What does success mean?"...

  

On 10/14/2022 at 1:23 PM, dimreepr said:

So the answer is clearly on spectrum between the two; which further focuses the question to:

what's the minimum level of success, acceptable too both? 

...your spectrum is too short...

 

Edited October 15, 2022 by Sensei

[iNow]

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I see the minimum amount of success as, continuing to want to be here today.

Again, context matters. For the person suffering and genuinely ready for an end, thinking of hospice patients and elderly with no chance of improvement, not “wanting to be here today” is an entirely legitimate and valid desire and success to them very well could be termination of life.

Just bc you think success is continued living doesn’t mean they must agree, nor does it make their definition of success any less valid or relevant. 

[Sensei]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Again, context matters. For the person suffering and genuinely ready for an end, thinking of hospice patients and elderly with no chance of improvement, not “wanting to be here today” is an entirely legitimate and valid desire and success to them very well could be termination of life.

Just bc you think success is continued living doesn’t mean they must agree, nor does it make their definition of success any less valid or relevant. 

People don't want to be here because they are in pain. Physical pain, metaphysical pain, existential pain..

Understandable.

Some/most sources of pain can be cured/repaired.

 

"Success" = "existence of human beings one day longer"....

 

 

[LaurieAG]

In Herodotus "the Histories" he describes the meaning of 'happiness', as summarized in the following abstract, so it wouldn't surprise me if the meaning of 'success' is similar'.

Quote

In conversation with Croesus, Herodotus' Solon makes two important points about human happiness: a) any human life is filled with change, so a person's happiness cannot be evaluated properly until he or she has died; b) the rich and powerful are as subject to change as anyone else.

 

[dimreepr]

23 hours ago, iNow said:

Again, context matters. For the person suffering and genuinely ready for an end, thinking of hospice patients and elderly with no chance of improvement, not “wanting to be here today” is an entirely legitimate and valid desire and success to them very well could be termination of life.

Just bc you think success is continued living doesn’t mean they must agree, nor does it make their definition of success any less valid or relevant. 

Good point, in light of that then success is, getting what we need now.

23 hours ago, Sensei said:

Eternal life or rather eternal existence.. ?

..in the midst of artificial intelligence that will ask the question "the meaning of life?" or other mortal beings asking questions in a scientific forum like "What does success mean?"...

Nothing is eternal, not even your AI god's, success is what happens today.

23 hours ago, Sensei said:

...your spectrum is too short...

Every spectrum is infinite, 😉

23 hours ago, Sensei said:

"Success" = "existence of human beings one day longer"....

One day, tomorrow will be the end.

8 hours ago, LaurieAG said:

In Herodotus "the Histories" he describes the meaning of 'happiness', as summarized in the following abstract, so it wouldn't surprise me if the meaning of 'success' is similar'.

In conversation with Croesus, Herodotus' Solon makes two important points about human happiness: a) any human life is filled with change, so a person's happiness cannot be evaluated properly until he or she has died; b) the rich and powerful are as subject to change as anyone else.

 I think he was describing the problem with seeking 'happiness' or the word contentment was misinterpreted.

Success only really has meaning, if one is content with the outcome... 

Edited October 16, 2022 by dimreepr

[Sensei]

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Every spectrum is infinite, 😉

Hm?

[dimreepr]

On 10/15/2022 at 1:36 PM, Sensei said:

In the midst of artificial intelligence that will ask the question "the meaning of life?"

Has it solved it yet?

It reminds me of this question...

Quote

Nelson explains how Google’s self-driving algorithm works. When a self-driving car sees a cyclist, it would move slightly over in its lane to give the cyclist more space. Google’s algorithm calculates the probability by risk magnitude, compares it to the value of information to be gained, and uses that to make decisions. Getting sideswiped by a truck has a risk magnitude of 5,000, getting into a head-on crash with another car has a risk magnitude of 20,000, and hitting a pedestrian has a risk magnitude of 100,000 (Nelson). This point system calculates the value to different scenarios, people, animals, objects, and makes quick decisions for the best course of action.

That pesky spectrum, here, would include "The Judean people's front, suicide squad." that would jump out in front of the car, in a gleeful attempt to make it crash into innocent Roman's, out for a days shopping...

I  wonder how many points for a runaway wheelchair carrying a dead pensioner/disabled mother and daughter?

Not the first tangent in this topic...

[𝓔𝓵𝓮𝓷𝓲𝓮𝓵]

The definition of success is subjective. It depends on the person, their worldviews, the situation itself, and many other factors.

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, 𝓔𝓵𝓮𝓷𝓲𝓮𝓵 said:

The definition of success is subjective. It depends on the person, their worldviews, the situation itself, and many other factors.

Then why do we tend to measure our success against that of other's?

If it's purely subjective then I'm, automatically, more successful than my dead friends... 

[Genady]

16 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

why do we tend to measure our success against that of other's?

I measure my success against my goals.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

I measure my success against my goals.

Well then, I hope your goals are achievable; there is only one world champion.

[Genady]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Well then, I hope your goals are achievable; there is only one world champion.

I believe they are, although I failed to achieve some of them. E.g., my first marriage.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

I believe they are, although I failed to achieve some of them. E.g., my first marriage.

We have to be careful about the narrative of our goals, success doesn't have to mean a happy ending.

What if you don't achieve any of them?

The story of your road can be successful, if you're happy that you've travelled it.

[Genady]

14 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What if you don't achieve any of them?

For me, it would be very sad.

Plus, some of the goals are such that failure to achieve them might be quite painful. E.g., one of my early goals was escape from the USSR. A failure in this one meant more than just not escaping. It meant trading my warm city of Baku for much colder places.