To What Extent Aŕe You a Pessimist or Optimist in Your Philosophical Approach to Life?

[LuckyR]

I believe in the ability to chart one's own course, thus I am optimistic that one can improve one's situation. Everyone can't be in the top 5% (by definition) but huge numbers of individuals can improve their situation by 5-10%, due to the apathy and ineffective strategies chosen by others.

I am definitely in favour of the view that one can probably improve one's situation, but I am not sure what you mean by 'the apathy and ineffective strategies chosen by others? Do you mean that the problem is imitation of others' strategies? I am inclined to think that the intrusive and often unwanted advice of others is one of the biggest limiting factors. So often people seem to try to tell me what I should do, wish for or settle for in life. Nowadays, I can cast it aside more easily but in the past found it more problematic to do so. In some ways, living and being in social groups come with a certain amount of narrowing of thought, probably in the form of stated and subliminal beliefs and assumptions which are transmitted culturally.

I meant that if you subscribe to the idea that life (or the economy in the short haul) is a zero sum game, then gains by one group needs to be offset by losses elsewhere. That is, it is impossible for everyone to gain. Thus if 33% of folks choose to improve their situation and 90%of them succeed, rest assured that another 33% choose to nothing (the apathetic third), while another 33% will engage in wrong choices (either self destructive or just errors of judgement).

The issue which I have is that while most human beings are competitive, your approach to success seems based entirely upon comparisons. To some extent, a certain amount of comparison is inevitable because no one lives in an isolated social bubble, but it is not always helpful. Growing up in school can involve seeing others' achievements, which may spur one on, but it can also be detrimental in the development of unique human potential.

You are correct that "success" can (and one can argue: should) be measured independently as opposed to comparatively. However, I'm also correct that "improvement" is by definition a comparative term and must be determined competitively.

[JackDaydream]

I am definitely in favour of the view that one can probably improve one's situation, but I am not sure what you mean by 'the apathy and ineffective strategies chosen by others? Do you mean that the problem is imitation of others' strategies? I am inclined to think that the intrusive and often unwanted advice of others is one of the biggest limiting factors. So often people seem to try to tell me what I should do, wish for or settle for in life. Nowadays, I can cast it aside more easily but in the past found it more problematic to do so. In some ways, living and being in social groups come with a certain amount of narrowing of thought, probably in the form of stated and subliminal beliefs and assumptions which are transmitted culturally.

I meant that if you subscribe to the idea that life (or the economy in the short haul) is a zero sum game, then gains by one group needs to be offset by losses elsewhere. That is, it is impossible for everyone to gain. Thus if 33% of folks choose to improve their situation and 90%of them succeed, rest assured that another 33% choose to nothing (the apathetic third), while another 33% will engage in wrong choices (either self destructive or just errors of judgement).

The issue which I have is that while most human beings are competitive, your approach to success seems based entirely upon comparisons. To some extent, a certain amount of comparison is inevitable because no one lives in an isolated social bubble, but it is not always helpful. Growing up in school can involve seeing others' achievements, which may spur one on, but it can also be detrimental in the development of unique human potential.

You are correct that "success" can (and one can argue: should) be measured independently as opposed to comparatively. However, I'm also correct that "improvement" is by definition a comparative term and must be determined competitively.

Even the concept of 'success' and 'failure' is so comparative, especially in it's all encompassing effects. I once failed on a course and a tutor said to me, 'You must feel so much of a failure'. The comment did upset me greatly, but it was provocative. The tutor may have also meant it in such a way and I tried to conceive it in such a way. Generally, so much thinking in Western individualist society is so related to performance measurement of success or failure. It can be detrimental to self awareness, especially when improvement is so related to ideals and expectations, in which people in educational and work organisations do not appear to have a questioning approach to the criteria of judgments, especially the concepts of success/pass vs failure. Such distinctions may have such profound effects on self esteem and social labels impact in the nature of self-fulfilling prophesies of development of future potential.

[Pattern-chaser]

Even the concept of 'success' and 'failure' is so comparative, especially in it's all encompassing effects. I once failed on a course and a tutor said to me, 'You must feel so much of a failure'. The comment did upset me greatly, but it was provocative. The tutor may have also meant it in such a way and I tried to conceive it in such a way. Generally, so much thinking in Western individualist society is so related to performance measurement of success or failure. It can be detrimental to self awareness, especially when improvement is so related to ideals and expectations, in which people in educational and work organisations do not appear to have a questioning approach to the criteria of judgments, especially the concepts of success/pass vs failure. Such distinctions may have such profound effects on self esteem and social labels impact in the nature of self-fulfilling prophesies of development of future potential.

When we start to drill down, as you are doing here, we reach the point where people need to earn money to live and survive. So success and failure become survival mechanisms. There is no absolute need for competition, but the need (for competition) emerges from our need to earn, and makes competition unavoidable in practice, in our Capitalist world, I think?

[Meta Island]

Realistic about what happens and can happen in the world, pessimistic about what to expect from people, optimistic about can be achieved with love and hard work.

I am inclined to be a bit pessimistic about what to expect from other people. Generally, I have always wished to see the good in others but, so many times I have felt let down by others. That has turned into a kind of realism, although there are exceptions when another can show a wonderful side too.

A live-and-let-live philosophy covers a lot of ground and dismisses or eases a lot of disappointments.

[LuckyR]

I meant that if you subscribe to the idea that life (or the economy in the short haul) is a zero sum game, then gains by one group needs to be offset by losses elsewhere. That is, it is impossible for everyone to gain. Thus if 33% of folks choose to improve their situation and 90%of them succeed, rest assured that another 33% choose to nothing (the apathetic third), while another 33% will engage in wrong choices (either self destructive or just errors of judgement).

The issue which I have is that while most human beings are competitive, your approach to success seems based entirely upon comparisons. To some extent, a certain amount of comparison is inevitable because no one lives in an isolated social bubble, but it is not always helpful. Growing up in school can involve seeing others' achievements, which may spur one on, but it can also be detrimental in the development of unique human potential.

You are correct that "success" can (and one can argue: should) be measured independently as opposed to comparatively. However, I'm also correct that "improvement" is by definition a comparative term and must be determined competitively.

Even the concept of 'success' and 'failure' is so comparative, especially in it's all encompassing effects. I once failed on a course and a tutor said to me, 'You must feel so much of a failure'. The comment did upset me greatly, but it was provocative. The tutor may have also meant it in such a way and I tried to conceive it in such a way. Generally, so much thinking in Western individualist society is so related to performance measurement of success or failure. It can be detrimental to self awareness, especially when improvement is so related to ideals and expectations, in which people in educational and work organisations do not appear to have a questioning approach to the criteria of judgments, especially the concepts of success/pass vs failure. Such distinctions may have such profound effects on self esteem and social labels impact in the nature of self-fulfilling prophesies of development of future potential.

I apologize to you on behalf of the universe that you ran into such a jerk of a tutor. I completely agree with you that "success" is best calculated individually.

I have good luck with a bimodal approach. First, I acknowledge that I am a social animal who is an active participant in the economy. I made numerous important decisions early on to set myself up for relative financial independence. On the social front, my needs are below average and well within my admittedly also below average skills. Neither of these are my (and I would argue should be anyone's) definition of success. This, I agree is best measured individually and internally, since we're all different and have different goals and preferences.