I try to affect reality, not the interpretation of reality. I write software and sell to customers. This is reality. My software exists, my customer relationships exist, and the software is solving my customers' problems. There's really no good answer on whether my business is mediocre or not, so I try not to think along those lines.
Uh, no. There are a lot of medicore people (I'm one of them) and a few winners.
Life is a competition. Never, ever forget that! Those who are the strongest, smartest, richest, best-looking, socially-aware and most driven are the ones who will probably succeed. (There's always luck involved.) They will get the best jobs (or not have to work), the best mating opportunities, the best everything.
Every minute of every day you are not spending on improving yourself and your position in this world is wasted time. If you do not struggle, you will not succeed, period.
Now, having given you a motivational speech that a Chinese "tiger mom" would find barely adequate at best... the question is, what does this have to do with happiness and overall life satisfaction?
Well, almost nothing. Success can provide opportunities for happiness, but that actually has to be pursued on its own. And the things you need to do for happiness are often in opposition to the things you need to do for success.
What I really want people to do is to just be aware of the tradeoffs. If you want to coast through life, that's fine, as long as you have a good understanding of the costs and benefits.
But life really is a competition.
This is very much impossible. Above average? Probably. But then they become satiated with the above average things that they do have, get bored, adopt a new definition of "average", and wish they had the bank president's salary. The bank president wants to be president of Goldman Sachs. The president of Goldman wishes he had a wife like so-and-so's.
Ambition is fine and all, but once you start measuring your life that way there's nothing but a black hole all the way down.
>If you want to coast through life, that's fine, as long as you have a good understanding of the costs and benefits.
Same thing definitely goes with viewing life as a competition.
As long as someone else views life as a competition, then it is. As long as there are limited resources, then it is. It doesn't matter what you think.
And if you choose not to compete at the highest levels, that's fine. I know I don't, and I don't look down at those who don't.
Competition defines your existence. It determines where you live, where you work, and what you eat. It has determined who you are and how you are made, for you are a product of evolution. It is woven deeply into the fabric of your existence, on a daily level as well as on geological timescales. It even determines how you think, according to some theories about how mental processes work.
You don't have to derive your existential meaning from competition, but ignore it completely at your peril.
It is life itself, it is all around you.
What are the rules?
You choose them yourself, but choose wisely.
What if I don't wish to play?
Leaving the game is easy, people do it all the time. All you have to do is stop.
When does the competition end?
When you give up, or get too unlucky.
What is the prize when the competition ends and you are the winner?
The only prize is your own satisfaction, but no big prize at the end. The daily prize is that you get to keep playing.
History books are way overrated. I can name like 3 Roman emperors, one of them is famous for being killed. And those dudes are about on top of the world as you can get.
Modern marriage is hugely risky compared to what it used to be. Someone who marries the same person twice must revel in risk.
To me, to add, a pre-nup sounds like a romance killer. I couldn't imagine serving one to someone I intend to spend the rest of my life with since it amounts to plan B (that and I don't think it's possible in the UK).
Falling. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/upshot/the-divorce-surge-i...
The divorce rate increased for the same reason it isn't now, swaths of social pressures that 'forced' people into getting married young, having kids and raising a family are either going away or simply ignored by more and more people. That these pressures are changing and divorce doesn't have the same stigma are good things.
> a pre-nup sounds like a romance killer
A pre-nup is dealing with the parts of marriage that have nothing to do with romance. If you're going into a marriage thinking it's nothing but romance, wine and roses, you may be in for a rude awakening.
The point is, we've both seen couples in our circles go from that to absolutely messy divorces. We simply decided that in the rare chance we don't work out, we'd have laid down the rules of separation while we still loved each other. While it certainly wasn't romantic, it didn't kill the romance.
Working out the pre-nup allowed us to really consider how harmful separation would be for both of us on an emotional level. That led to us trying to make the rules for separation as clear as possible. If anything, it strengthened our relationship.
It helps if neither party is interested in "If he/she/they cheats I get double" sorts of clauses and instead are interested in a clear, fair split regardless of the circumstances.
Perhaps my view of this kind of agreement is tarnished by the stereotypical type (you mention it with "if you cheat then x" or how someone with a lot of wealth would aim to protect that when marrying on short notice).
Thank you!
A marriage has everything to do with romance in terms of the kind of relationship we're talking about: a romantic relationship.
Personally, I haven't made my perspective clear in my original comment. Me and my partner have lived together for some time, we have kids and our own home. I definitely don't expect a bed of roses after marriage. In fact, after the experience, it would be pretty damn foolish to expect that from a day to remember, a legal document, a few things and nice holiday.
Despite that, I still fail to see how I, myself, could serve my partner with a pre-nup after knowing, by this time, she is the person I want to spend the rest of my life with.
My opinion is perhaps related to your first paragraph in that I have 0 pressure to get married and I have hafthe luxury of giving myself the best part of a decade to make that decision. That is why in my case I wouldn't serve a pre-nup - it would pretty much say "hey were getting married after a decade of commitment and realisation we want to spend our lives together but I still don't fully believe we will so best sign this just in case". That doesn't really show commitment to me.
To conclude, I would absolutely get a pre nup if the relationship was quite new but then again I wouldn't get married like that so hastily.
To me, marriage is the highest honour you can bestow on someone. You are in effect both saying "yes I honour this person so damn much, I want us to join families". That's a major thing and it actually kinda hurts to see some people treat marriage in a way that decreases its great significance.
Not legally it doesn't and that is where a pre-nup is involved. A pre-nup is related to all the contract law around the legal institution of marriage. The law doesn't care about how much you love each other. You could marry someone to set explicit inheritance rights, absolutely hate the other person and it is still a legal marriage.
I'm not saying people don't marry for reasons other than lifetime union. I'm pretty certain I would have a prenup drawn up in the situations you give as examples. My point is that I would not treat marriage that way because it is an honour that you bestow only on the person you intend to marry.
Perhaps i'm getting confused too. I'm talking about serving what is in effect a contingency plan wrt division of assets in the event of divorce. If that is the case, I still stand by what I say in that if you feel this is necessary, perhaps you need to give it more time instead of jumping into what is the highest honour two people can bestow on each other.
Legally there is no marriage until you sign that contract at which point you are in a partnership that is covered by many, many laws because it is a legal construct, pre-nups being just one. If you can not recognize this and you go into a marriage thinking of nothing but romance, you are going into it blind and delusional.
> Except that the point of marriage is closer union with someone you intend to spend the rest of your life with
That's actually a pretty new development. You married to stop wars, you married to care for your house, you married to have kids and have someone care for them, you married to carry of the family business.
I'm sorry but what part of being in a committed relationship for the best part of a decade do you not understand? I am well aware what a marriage is legally. If you want to view marriage purely as a legal instrument, that's fine by me. To me, a marriage is, through means of law, making official a commitment I already experience. It would NOT change my day to day whatsoever and is purely a piece of paper that lays out how my long term relationship currently works anyway.
A marriage is a romantic event. It is not purely a romantic event but it is none the less. I place value in that but I also place value in the legal document that comes from it. By law, that document cements the way we have lived our lives for many years. Im not actually sure where I said it wasn't a legal contract?
As I said, I have been in a committed relationship for a long time. We have lived together and had children together. A marriage would not change that at all. Im not sure why that makes me blind or delusional? It certainly doesn't warrant the insult in any case.
That sounds very upper class and feudal in respect too. I am from a working class background and from peasantry before it. I doubt my ancestors would have been able to stop a war or continue a family business by marriage. Regardless I am not going down that rabbit hole only to be insulted.
No. It's falling. Except in the age group of 50+.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6256956
We can't know the divorce rates of the people who get married now, only the people who got married years ago. Since the people who get married now are very different than the people who got married previously we can't assume that divorce rates will follow the same trends. For example, people enter marriage now older and more educated. We know both of those decrease the probability of divorce.
Now do i think he is mediocre? No way! Even as a husband only him can tell that, maybe not even his wives. Nobody know how hard it was for him to be in a marriage, or even get to marriage in the first place.
Take again an small entrepreneur from Brazil, India or Africa in a small village. Are they mediocre? Sure, low money, not visible for the world, no New York Times covers.
But how hard it really is to be a entrepreneur when all the education you had when you was a kid was how to ask for money in the streets?
There's no mediocrity there's just this illusion created by the very riches and powerful to make even more money, to create a crazy game to make us feel bad and always keep charging for the carrot.
In the end of the day, it's your job to respect everyone limitations, including yours, and never judge the guys next to you as mediocre, or yourself. You may not get in the history books, but a lot of people around you that need you and your "mediocrity" wont read then anyway.