I think greatness and success are such subjective terms. People tend to get fixated on this idea of greatness because we love to be important and we all want praise and to leave a mark on this world, so that when we die, it won't have all been for nothing. I myself really craved that for a long time, but now I see it was a sign of misery. I wanted happiness so much, and I thought happiness would come with fame and money and being loved by masses. When I got my mental state under check, my priorities changed drastically. Happiness doesn't come from outside sources.
And trauma... Well, I suppose the reasons why people achieve greatness after experiencing trauma are few, one being that trauma is so common, another - we are fighters. But I don't think it's a big factor. If it was, every person with trauma would have to achieve something amazing, and vice versa, every person who achieved something great would have to have childhood trauma. I think it's all a big game of chance and coincidence. Just as you said, this reporter just picked certain people to base his theory on. Even then, he picked Karl Jung, who was a psychologist. The fact we still know his name and work doesn't mean he himself in his life felt successful, just like Van Gogh was a failing painter who went mad. Success in these people is completely different than the success of Steve Jobs, for example. And his is much different than the success of Gutenberg, who made one of the most incredible and important inventions in the world but ended up indebted and working for his investors because he was so bad with money. What, then, is this success, this greatness? Who decides it?
I'm rambling. The point is, maybe let's not romanticise trauma more than it already is.
Greatness and success are indeed subjective terms, and hopefully, this text hasn't been too one-sided. I guess the idea of leaving your mark on this world is linked to purpose: What are you waking up for in the morning? What drives you to do things?
Of course, craving success can be more toxic than motivational, and this is where people get it wrong, as you correctly pointed out. Happiness can't be constant – we are not happy people. We are people with a wide range of emotions. It's nothing wrong to aim for more (whatever "more" is for you), but you're right: One should not romanticise pain/suffering/ trauma as a precursor of success. Because what may look like success for some, it is actually misery for others.
If only we weren't so dependant on everybody's opinions about ourselves and/or the work we do, then perhaps, our success will start and end with what makes us, you know, content. We wouldn't need to demonstrate anything to anymore, apart from maybe, ourselves (but that again would be based on external influence? Hmm!!).
Thank you so much, Blue, for taking the time to write down your thoughts. Very much appreciated!
I think greatness and success are such subjective terms. People tend to get fixated on this idea of greatness because we love to be important and we all want praise and to leave a mark on this world, so that when we die, it won't have all been for nothing. I myself really craved that for a long time, but now I see it was a sign of misery. I wanted happiness so much, and I thought happiness would come with fame and money and being loved by masses. When I got my mental state under check, my priorities changed drastically. Happiness doesn't come from outside sources.
And trauma... Well, I suppose the reasons why people achieve greatness after experiencing trauma are few, one being that trauma is so common, another - we are fighters. But I don't think it's a big factor. If it was, every person with trauma would have to achieve something amazing, and vice versa, every person who achieved something great would have to have childhood trauma. I think it's all a big game of chance and coincidence. Just as you said, this reporter just picked certain people to base his theory on. Even then, he picked Karl Jung, who was a psychologist. The fact we still know his name and work doesn't mean he himself in his life felt successful, just like Van Gogh was a failing painter who went mad. Success in these people is completely different than the success of Steve Jobs, for example. And his is much different than the success of Gutenberg, who made one of the most incredible and important inventions in the world but ended up indebted and working for his investors because he was so bad with money. What, then, is this success, this greatness? Who decides it?
I'm rambling. The point is, maybe let's not romanticise trauma more than it already is.
Greatness and success are indeed subjective terms, and hopefully, this text hasn't been too one-sided. I guess the idea of leaving your mark on this world is linked to purpose: What are you waking up for in the morning? What drives you to do things?
Of course, craving success can be more toxic than motivational, and this is where people get it wrong, as you correctly pointed out. Happiness can't be constant – we are not happy people. We are people with a wide range of emotions. It's nothing wrong to aim for more (whatever "more" is for you), but you're right: One should not romanticise pain/suffering/ trauma as a precursor of success. Because what may look like success for some, it is actually misery for others.
If only we weren't so dependant on everybody's opinions about ourselves and/or the work we do, then perhaps, our success will start and end with what makes us, you know, content. We wouldn't need to demonstrate anything to anymore, apart from maybe, ourselves (but that again would be based on external influence? Hmm!!).
Thank you so much, Blue, for taking the time to write down your thoughts. Very much appreciated!