> Wisdom is not the sum of success, it is the sum of failure
That doesn't make any sense. Failing is not implicitly useful and (while we are on the topic of morality) must not be held up as a goal.
That doesn't make any sense. Failing is not implicitly useful and (while we are on the topic of morality) must not be held up as a goal.
The upside of failure is that it teaches more reliable lessons than success, there's no survivorship bias at play when learning from failures like there is with success. Jack Ma's lengthy interview at Davos this year touches on the subject if you'd like to see that perspective defended by someone with authority.
It depends on who is doing it. Maybe you understand what you said, but others have an interest in not understanding it because they have an obstacle in themselves.
> The upside of failure is that it teaches more reliable lessons than success, there's no survivorship bias at play when learning from failures like there is with success.
I would like to improve your abilities or otherwise open up your wisdom. Any "upside of failure" is by definition a success. Therefore people's statements about success and failure, as if the nature of the result can be captured by a singular datapoint, are self-contradictory, and meaningful only as a reflection of the individual's limitation of understanding.
> if you'd like to see that perspective defended by someone with authority.
We're talking about wisdom here, so the only authority is a perfectly enlightened being, not an ordinary human being who has knowledge but no way to confirm the degree of exactness of their own ability to make confirmations. No one without enlightenment perceives the causes of why things happen to them. If you want to convince me someone is an authority on how a good and a bad thing happens then I will need to see any proof at all they realize the principle by which the world operates. Otherwise you should realize that's merely their own ideas, of which some percentage may be correct, despite their inability to confirm it.
They were simultaneously different points and part of the same point in my argument. Separately, failure is a good thing - as any CEO would tell you. Together, they are horrific.
It's very complicated, which is a far cry from "idiotic" as the article portrays.
How can you possibly say failure can't be useful? How do you iterate your plans and designs? I don't think you appreciate how knowledge works. Your weird demonization of failure (including it somehow being a moral issue?) won't force success, it's just going to stop you from realistically evaluating your goals.
Aside from that explanation, I'm not dying to debate you or list exhaustive examples or whatever because you're belligerent and arrogant. People like you can't be convinced, you have to go through it yourselves several times to figure it out, if ever.