Hacker News Reader

Comment by phs318u | Hacker News Reader

I used to worry about being "successful" until I had an epiphany triggered by my father's death. Do you want to know what success is? Visualise the day of your funeral. Who is there? Are they sad, devastated, in tears? Are they looking at their watch or relieved you're finally gone? What does it say on your headstone? "Here lies roody15. Beloved father, husband, son. Forever in our hearts" Or will it say, "Here lies roody15. He was a good employee". Will anyone from your work be talking about your 60-hour weeks and the weekends you put in when the business really needed it? Or will your kids be talking through tears about how they'll miss you reading them bedtime stories?

For me, I define personal success by the impact I have on other people's lives and the imprint I leave on their hearts. Everything else is filler. Undeniably useful - but filler.

View on HN

Whoa, I thought

> Beloved father, husband, son. Forever in our hearts"

was brutally generic but then ...

> He was a good employee

Which is worse than "he was a decent man" [0]. Oof.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Stone_(character)

"He was a decent man" sounds like a worthy ambition. I'd be proud of "He wasn't a dick".

I'd rather be defined by my virtues than by the absence of flaws.

A hermit in a cave could similarly be described, but I think any life that makes a positive impact, however small or large, requires something more.

I use variant of this - myself on the proverbial death bed, looking back through decades and seeing decisions if good or bad.

It changes the motivation slightly - great family bonds definitely yes if possible. But I won't care less if tons of other people would come and praise me, or not. I want to be proud of life lived, and I am good enough to judge that. Not harming others to be successful in personal life, happy, balanced person.

Why I don't care that much for opinion of others - ie if you live your life beyond what anybody expected from you, this will produce some envy even in closest peers. They see points where you chose different path to greater success than them, and successes compound over time, hard to avoid regrets there. What a lot of people do in such situation is stopping sharing any info about cool great things happening with practically anybody, in same manner when properly rich live maintain façade of relatively frugal life. Possible, but its caving to want-to-be-liked emotions.

Living life of adventures, exotic travel, extreme sports (in my case, this is what makes me tick and it makes me tick very well).

I am definitely the type that works to live... I mean wasting more life than necessary in the office inevitably leads to regrets later in life, regardless of the amount of wealth. Sometimes learning from others mistakes is enough, especially without save positions available.

That sounds a lot like a "immortality project", as described by Becker in The Denial of Death [1].

[1] https://ernestbecker.org/about-becker/beckers-synthesis/#:~:....

'Immortality project' or just, a traditional way of seeing oneself as being a part of a 'line' or stream of life.

This is true, but when I'm dead I won't be there, so what people say isn't that relevant.

However, if I don't put in the hours now, I might get to enjoy life less because I'll have less resources to do so. (Within reason of course, life really does come first. But work is still important).

People have odd ideas about their amazing historical impact. The way people will remember them, being "on the right side of history".

But 99.9% of people won't really be remembered at all beyond a generation or two, if that. And canned speeches at funerals last for like 10 minutes, certainly not living my life for that.

People who lived before you shaped you. While physically you won't be there, you'll pass the torch to the next generation in same way.

Those who won't be remembered after a couple generations still shape that next generation that will shape the next generation and so on.

That's closest to immortality you can get.

I think you've missed my point. It's not about what they say. What they say is a reflection of the impact you've had on their lives. It isn't about leaving behind a legacy of "historical impact". The exercise is meant to cause you to reflect on what behaviours, what actions are likely to leave such positive impacts on others that they feel that way. Focusing solely on material success is unlikely to result in that kind of positive impact. If there's any legacy at all, its in that people may wish to emulate your best behaviours as a result of your impact.

I believe I appreciate your point.

But, you appear to be making the assumption that the impacts one leaves are the defining features of ones life. It's certainly a valid point of view, but not sure I fully subscribe to it.

Additionally, I doubt my ability to recognize, in sum if an impact is ultimately for good or ill.

> Do you want to know what success is?

You’re not describing what success “is”. You are just describing something then calling it “success”.

The whole setup is like bad Platonic philosophy.

Socrates: what is success?

Useful idiot: Money!

Socrates: Ah, but will your money miss you after you die?

Useful idiot: Wow! Deep!

The exercise is not about whether you'll be missed afterwards. Its to elicit the reflection on "What behaviour in my life would result in that effect?" It's about reflecting on what it takes to be a good person - and then living accordingly. You may be entirely alone in this world, parents dead, no siblings, no partner, no children and not even friends - but you can still perform this thought exercise and live accordingly.

> It's about reflecting on what it takes to be a good person

I don’t think invoking the usually incoherently used word “good” is very helpful.

If "good" is too hard to define, maybe "asshole" is less so? In which case, be the opposite of an asshole.

> In which case, be the opposite of an asshole.

Why?

Being an asshole is something you can only be as a result of interaction with others in some way. A perfect hermit can’t be an asshole. Therefore, assuming being an asshole means your interactions with others are negatively felt, you’re therefore imposing your will on others at the expense of others. It’s fundamentally anti/democratic and anti-social. The reason that’s important is because we live in a society and well functioning society requires its members to play nice. Otherwise it begins to fall apart. In other words, I’m saying you should logically choose to not be an asshole. Assuming of course you gain some benefit from being part of a functioning society.

But don’t I benefit most by covertly defecting (crypto-assholing) in a well functioning society? Then I get the standard benefits of the society and some stolen ones.

Maybe, maybe not. Are there victimless crimes? A lot of people may think insurance fraud is such a thing but clearly that's a narrow view of "victimless". I do think you're right at some level or else being an asshole wouldn't have any survival advantage and would perhaps not have survived as a trait (assuming some heritable basis for being an asshole). But then how do you explain people who seemingly derive joy from pure trolling? No personal benefit other than lulz. Sounds a little sociopathic no? Then again, maybe these people are nature's chaos monkyes. Sowing the seeds of destructive change. Who knows.

I just know that I personally choose to try and not be an asshole.

What is the downside to you for being an asshole? Especially if no one is aware of it besides you?

It reminds me of something David Brooks said, that we all have both "resume virtues" and "eulogy virtues".

You'd like a Christmas Carol then.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com