3 ms·

Agree with you on this. Advice, coming from any billionaire, millionaire or otherwise top percentile person, should be taken with a grain of salt. Main reason i

Agree with you on this. Advice, coming from any billionaire, millionaire or otherwise top percentile person, should be taken with a grain of salt. Main reason in my opinion is that it's ingrained into their personality. A lot of them are not "normal". I don't want to label people, but their brains function differently than mine at least. I remember Nietszche's argument, probably from "Beyon Good and Evil", that philosophy cannot be separated from the philosopher. Stoics were stoics, because their personalities were fitted for this kind of philosophy. You can become "successful" only, when your personality is already predispositioned for this kind of life.

natmaka 6y ago
Top percentile persons tend to have more assistants, sometimes inducing quite a leverage quantitatively (amount of work) and also qualitatively (not having to arrange or even think about logistics/schedule/... may be let one focus on "his" field).
chiefalchemist 6y ago
To your point, we can't be certain these tools are why Mr A has been so successful. There's no control group. It's possible only one is cause, and the rest correlation. On top of that, your or my results may vary. What if his "tools" made you, your family and/or manager miserable? Is that "success." I'm an older white male and even I'm troubled by the old white male paradigm of success. That system works well for some. But it's less and less so for the rest of us. I'm not saying it's wrong per se. Only that we'd all be wise to think outside that paradigm. To consider optimizing for things other than the usual suspects.
ycombinete 6y ago
While I love Nietszche, and agree that the philisophy cannot be separated from the philosopher. I am not sure that the way you've applied it to the stoics is accurate. If we take two of the most well known, Seneca, and Marcus Aurelius. Seneca is well known to have been quite hypocritical. He apparently lived quit a hedonistic life. And reading the Meditations, I see Marcus Aurelius constantly admonishing, himslef for his failings to stick to the stoic principles; or reminding himself to do so.[0] I personally think that those that seek out specific philosophies are often those that need them the most; not those that fit them the best. I'm extremely drawn to stoic philosophy, but am definitely not stoic in character! Personal philosophies especially. It reminds me of this scene in Parks and Recreation. Ron Swanson goes meditating with Chris Treger, and says the following afterwards: "All told we were in there about 6 hour, and no I was not meditating. I just stood there quietly breathing. There were no thougths in my head whatsoever. My mind was blank. I don’t know what the hell these other crack pots are doing". The irony being that he's so good at meditation that he sees no value in the practice. [0] Nietszche might well say that this means the stoic life was too unnatural to be followed without failure; if it's most well known proponents couldn't even stick to it. I certainly disagree there.

natmaka 6y ago

Top percentile persons tend to have more assistants, sometimes inducing quite a leverage quantitatively (amount of work) and also qualitatively (not having to arrange or even think about logistics/schedule/... may be let one focus on "his" field).

chiefalchemist 6y ago

To your point, we can't be certain these tools are why Mr A has been so successful. There's no control group. It's possible only one is cause, and the rest correlation. On top of that, your or my results may vary. What if his "tools" made you, your family and/or manager miserable? Is that "success." I'm an older white male and even I'm troubled by the old white male paradigm of success. That system works well for some. But it's less and less so for the rest of us. I'm not saying it's wrong per se. Only that we'd all be wise to think outside that paradigm. To consider optimizing for things other than the usual suspects.

ycombinete 6y ago

While I love Nietszche, and agree that the philisophy cannot be separated from the philosopher. I am not sure that the way you've applied it to the stoics is accurate. If we take two of the most well known, Seneca, and Marcus Aurelius. Seneca is well known to have been quite hypocritical. He apparently lived quit a hedonistic life. And reading the Meditations, I see Marcus Aurelius constantly admonishing, himslef for his failings to stick to the stoic principles; or reminding himself to do so.[0] I personally think that those that seek out specific philosophies are often those that need them the most; not those that fit them the best. I'm extremely drawn to stoic philosophy, but am definitely not stoic in character! Personal philosophies especially. It reminds me of this scene in Parks and Recreation. Ron Swanson goes meditating with Chris Treger, and says the following afterwards: "All told we were in there about 6 hour, and no I was not meditating. I just stood there quietly breathing. There were no thougths in my head whatsoever. My mind was blank. I don’t know what the hell these other crack pots are doing". The irony being that he's so good at meditation that he sees no value in the practice. [0] Nietszche might well say that this means the stoic life was too unnatural to be followed without failure; if it's most well known proponents couldn't even stick to it. I certainly disagree there.