No, but I never heard anyone say "again, why" about Van Gogh. The why is self-evident in retrospect.
I wouldn't put my art before everything else in life, and I'm not saying Mark Hurd did, but I get that some people do and once in a while that results in an incredible gift to humanity.
Most of the time it doesn't, but I don't see how you get a Van Gogh without a lot of people giving an unhealthy amount of themselves to potentially boring, mediocre shit.
To frame it with someone I know much better, what about Nikola Tesla? Profoundly accomplished, objectively made enormous contributions to engineering that made huge improvements to the quality of life for a large chunk of humanity. He was utterly obsessed with the pursuit of knowledge and nothing else. On his death bed he regretted his work ethic and wished only to have ever known the touch of a woman.
We may be benefiting from their obsessions, but they aren't.
Of course it’s possible to make smaller strides while living a more or less healthy life but I think for some (Tesla, Erdős) it just tips. But then again Erdős was maybe happy with his life...
Sticking with the scientists for a moment, maybe Feinman is exemplary. But are a bunch of Feinmanns enough?
Even a genius may not be immune to FOMO.
Which is why you're not Mark Hurd or Vincent Van Gogh.
Your family will (presumably) remember you fondly, and that's your reward. It will have to be enough. If it is, then good for you.
It's not what everybody else wants out of life, and that's OK.
Funny though I bet nobody who didn’t know him personally will remember Hurd in 50 years. Maybe a case study in B-school, but they don’t build monuments to folks who ran other people’s companies. Not that it isn’t crazy hard work, just that I don’t think a Hurd or a Cook is much concerned with their place in history.
And certainly, nobody who worked at Oracle will be remembered as one of the all-time best-loved business figures.
Balance has a cost, too. I consider myself pretty balanced. And I'm happy being balanced. Mostly. But I understand that I will never be truly great at anything. As long as I insist on balance, I will only ever be pretty good. Luckily enough, pretty good has been good enough. But still, I wonder what it would be like to pick one horse and ride it.
Some of them have kids with medical issues. Some of them have dedicated the same number of years directly supporting him.
If that person feels like those people would all be worse off without them, if he felt Oracle would tank much harder than it has if he stepped away, I could see that weighing on a good person.
How's that different from working 80 hours/week IF you enjoy it? Just don't force others to do the same.
Again, why?
If it wasn't "making and guiding companies", but e.g. someone was obsessed with making spaghetti paintings, and working for it the same hours, would we consider them balanced?