well, it's the atlantic, but still. a smart, dedicated, tenacious person succeeds and writes an essay about how it wasn't possible to lift oneself up, and the

well, it's the atlantic, but still. a smart, dedicated, tenacious person succeeds and writes an essay about how it wasn't possible to lift oneself up, and the very idea is harmful. while simultaneously providing an existential proof that quite the opposite is possible. sure, you can't do it alone. and perhaps whether it's religion or experience, you should know or will eventually learn you aren't the master of your own fate. and there's a difference between hubris and self-sufficiency. that and a few strawman arguments. becoming successful, even bare survival, requires independent effort, hard work and luck and sometimes benevolence of other members of society. But you miss out on a whole lot of the good luck if you are passed out in a ditch. and the other members of society aren't nearly as inclined to give a gift of help if you aren't going value it or repay in some other way by being not a leach. so what if you got help? you were worthy of that help. you made yourself worthy of it by being a great person. the only thing people have control over is the aspect they bring to the table. so it's not in the least harmful to focus on that. let the other stuff come as it wants to. and when it doesn't go well, the fact that hard-work is not always itself sufficient is a better explanation than throwing the whole idea of independence and pride away as harmful. just because it's not a black & white guarantee that if you work hard, you'll succeed, the entire concept isn't bad. the whole thing is basically a strawman, with something like a side of survivors guilt.