Comment by nonrandomstring | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nonrandomstring | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

nonrandomstring

> make a huge amount of money or to create something important

That doesn't mean the advice is not good. Change the telos a little and it mostly still applies.

It's possible to make something important and not get rich. I'm happy having done that and live a (economically) modest life. The most important yet contentious point, I believe, is this one:

> Be internally driven

My feeling is that true freethinkers with the courage of their convictions are less than 1%. I also believe that for most of us, it's actually something that holds one back from wealth.

I won't quote it chapter and verse, but what I believe the author is describing in the last part of this article is not an entrepreneur per se, but an "activist". Or rather, what has come to be labelled in this age of tedious conformity and wannabeism as "activism" - that being the sincere desire to change the world for the better. And all the better if that can be separated from the distraction of ego and personal wealth.

The unfortunate requirement of modernity is that money is necessary for action. Words alone may make a difference, but money helps. Since most so-called "successful" people are merely building fortunes to enable their real success, the telos or vision of their life, the distraction of making money as a step can be excused.

But I would add one last point to the article to make it more rounded.

14. Don't lose sight of your original, real motive.

Along the way many an ambitious person is overwhelmed by their "success", be it money, fame, or power. The cautionary narrative archetype is of course Tony Montana (Scarface). They forget their essential self-hood and the seed from their childhood that really drives them.

> My feeling is that true freethinkers with the courage of their convictions are less than 1%

This statement assumes that there's such a thing as free will and original thought. I know that this is a completely different, philosophical and metaphysical discussion, but still fundamental to the question of "how to be successful?"

The definition of freethinking that was used leans more towards “the ability to resist social pressures” than a consideration of the philosophical debate on free will, even if it is plausible that life is deterministic from a philosophical perspective [0].

For practical purposes, it’s best not to worry about determinism so much, and adopt the belief of compatibilism [1], which many institutions in society—such as the courts and legislature in Western countries—effective assume (if not free will).

The existence of original thought also matters less than the ability to effectively execute a plan to create a useful good or service, for the purpose of career development.

[0] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/

[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

If you don't believe in free will then there's no reason to discuss how to be successful.

Any `how to` discussion presumes free will as a fundamental axiom.

Not necessarily. An automaton without free will can consume and become the hundreds of bits and pieces of philosophies that are laid out in front of them. You might imagine the automaton to be like Kirby in the original Nintendo games. Never intending to become the laser Kirby, but instead being pulled by the invisible hand of fate (user input) and becoming a crude mockery of the things that cross its path.

Note that I don't believe any of this to be true, but it's an interesting thought experiment.

No I think you completely misunderstand the point of the statement. Its not about that the ideas or thoughts are truly free or original. That part is irrelevant, and if anything, almost assuredly false: even the most successful will admit to this.

No no, the second part of the statement, "the courage of their convictions", that is the rare part.

New ideas are common and most are just laying around in the ether to be picked up or put down at ones leisure. Only novices or fools think they're the first person to pick up a given lane of reason.

Its only the true imbeciles who decide to jump off a cliff and risk it all on an internal belief that they've 'got it right' with whatever they're doing that make it. There are plenty of cowards with ideas who never make it. Those aren't the people we're talking about.

The demonstrative proof is that everyone is free to take an idea and try and fly with it by jumping off a cliff. The rarity is that almost no one does it. The selection bias is that we only acknowledge those who do fly and not the pile of bodies at the bottom of the cliff.

And the ones who do risk it all and succeed are then derided with "you didn't build that" from people who didn't risk anything.

I feel like risk is on a perpetually limited time frame in the same way that businesses do not exist beyond 3 months, every 3 months.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com