2 ms·
>To not feel bad others have accomplished more? No; I think the self-made man is dangerous because it leads people to believe 2 things: 1.) You can and should
by nemothekid 3y ago
>To not feel bad others have accomplished more?
No; I think the self-made man is dangerous because it leads people to believe 2 things:
1.) You can and should go it alone
2.) Other people shouldn't need your help.
I don't think Arnold tells his story the way he does in order to diminish his own accomplishments. It's used to highlight all the people that helped him along the way to get him to where he is. It's important to ask for help, to ask for guidance and depend on others. There's no glory in going it alone and you can be propelled immensely by relying on others to support your efforts.
Furthermore, it's important to provide a lending hand to others. Great men are built with the help of others and you have a responsibility to help others excel when you can. I think telling these stories help break the hyper-individualistic ethos of the American self-made man. Once you break this myth that so-and-so is self-made, we can make steps into re-examining how we treat our families, friends and fellow Americans (and/or countrymen). Common adages such as "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" will become more and more asinine once we understand no one is fully self-made; and I think that change in social psyche will have societal benefits.
- wouldbecouldbe 3y agoOkay; maybe, in some cases going alone is fine, in some cases not. That's a discussion worth having. But even if that's the argument, that's not the way OP phrased his point. His point entirely about how the greats where just a product of their environment and not their individual greatness. Not a discussion that seems to in anyway advance to a better progress of group or individual; but more about pettiness tbh.