Fellows,

After watching The Social Network, a brilliant piece of movie directed by David Fincher (this is entirely a comment of my own), I was wondering whether with pure passion imbued with undying conviction on your own ideals, could you really or possibly succeed in life where all we know is money is the tool that moves the world around.

According to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs coined by Abraham Maslow himself, it is well understood that passion is located on the tip of the Pyramid of Needs which is known as Self Actualisation and before fulfilling that, one must first satisfy the other 4 elements below Self Actualisation, which are:

-) Esteem - understood by that school of thought as self confidence, personnel achievements, respect.

-) Love - As the tittle suggest, yes. The feeling of being loved and cared of.

-) Physiological - Those stuffs needed to survive, like air, food, place of shelter, education and security and of course Money

Hence, would you think that with only passion, yes, only passion, it is enough to bring wealth while in the same time achieving self actualisation, like how Zuck did, and to do it in country like Malaysia, with attention on being critical, pragmatic and realistic?

Debate's open for all and please ensure that only scholarly replies here, with proper citation and credits given.

Note: Previously listed in RWI, but since no one's there to reply to this thread, suggested it is moved here to PhD school.

Dreamer,

I believe my question is crystal clear; How to achieve wealth why maintaining your passion in doing things you want as practical as possible.


Yes, without passion, one wouldn't care to put his fullest of attention here. Well said.


This is not pragmatic enough, sir. Because if you having difficulties to put food on the table and fulfilling the basic of Maslow's, passion could be rather a superfluous dream only.

While for the rest, there is no Points of Informations as they are not relevant. However thanks a lot for your reply. Especially from a forummer of your calibre.

Regards,
721

dkk,

Definitely no. As defined in Maslow's, self actualisation and self attainment are the same thing, hence inter alia. Thereupon, it seems that it is definitely in sync with school of thoughts like Buddhism Buddhism.

The very essence of Buddhism is for one to become self attained, hence enlightenment of one's action, liberation of one's thought and ultimately cessation of suffering.

To cease from suffering, it is imperative to identify why, at first, one suffers.

Some people have loads of cash, but do they sleep well at night?

Hope that it rings a bell. However, a good try indeed.

Regards,
721

This post has been edited by SevenTwentyOne: Feb 17 2011, 02:13 AM

Scholarly reviews are needed in order for the advancement of civilization xD

---

Added on February 17, 2011, 7:30 pm

Wealth of monetary is wordly gratification, yes. Wealth of knowledge is a virtue. How about that?

This post has been edited by SevenTwentyOne: Feb 17 2011, 07:30 PM

Dreamer,

According to your saying, would it all come under this precedent: Passion-->>Effort-->>Hardworking-->>Money-->>Wealth ?
If it is so, then you are indeed indicating the 5 levels contained in the Hierarchy Of Needs.

According to m-w.com, passion, other than the often capitalized usage in the biblical studies, are:
intense, driving, or overmastering feeling or conviction

Hence, if one needs to make things right first, conviction is needed, hence passion.
Good one indeed.

However still, this is still NOT enough to make a person to achieve something groundbreaking I believed, and I also thinks that my believe is nothing since it is not from a scholar, but still there is a missing piece of virtue that is ultimately needed to ensure not a conviction, but a FULL and UNDIVIDED one. Ideas are needed here, dreamer.

Regards, 721.

Peeps,

Looks like this thread has started to gain a lot of wisdom replies, especially from an esteemed forum-er like dreamer101 and some. It is good that he has shared with us, simplistically enough to understand that passion is is the virtue needed to for someone to command a groundbreaking thoughts, while:

-the adequacy passion is a separate issue, hence it is not related to this debate.

- taking the first step is paramount, let other things handle themselves on the recourse of karma, which is 'what goes around comes around', when an action that was done will result in a reaction that correspond to the action or deed that was involved. Wikipedia: Karma.

Also dreamer101 has taken to explain to us the intricacy of Zen, which I would not dwell much into since this thread is originally opened to discuss how to achieve a groundbreaking results while being critical, pragmatic (ability to to act or practice while excluding artistic and intellectual matters, and its antonym is idealistic) and being realistic.

He has been [b]specific here:


While being pragmatic:


My notes: First hand observation is not conclusive without a good proven hypothesis done in controlled environment. Could you enlighten us more with scholarly citations? And I'm only 24 this year. Experiences? Not as deep as yours of course, but that does not matter here because that IS a well said statement, indeed.

And with both of that statement, he has indeed being very real and honest.

**************************************

Therefore, ladies and gentlemen fellow forummers, my conclusion on how to achieve something unique, would be, to borrow from dreamer's replies, be passionate, because:
- Without passion, which happened to be a virtue and when it is a virtue a discussion will somehow bound to become rather philosophical and idealistic due to interference of religious beliefs and dogmas.

-While to become a pragmatist in achieving a goal, one should NOT listen or follow other people's thinking. What he, dreamer has trying to make sense here would be to take the first step and do an act wholeheartedly. Well said.

- Also, to be realistic, when you are having or showing a sensible and practical idea of what can be achieved or expected askoxford.com: Realistic: to be sensible is as simple as it sounds like, do something that make sense and to be practical, that potential act must have a reasonable proportion of success while performing under standard conditions, in which everyone has their OWN standard.

Henceforth the question is considered answer and justified. Be passionate, other things are secondary.

Thanks for all contributions and replies, scholarly or otherwise. Still, I am not satisfied with this unless it can be justified by a learned expert, with proper citations because afterall, this is PhDSchool and as a scientist, a real one or aspired to be, acts are proven in experiment. That is because, wisdom is an ability of deep understanding to act optimally, hence with minimum amount of time and energy. Cited from Wikipedia: Wisdom. And wisdom is not experimentally justified virtue. [debate this]

Hence, please include your citation in following replies, else this discussion would turn to be another catch-22 discussion. =)

However, I believed that dreamer has answered all the queries whilst being crictical, pragmatic, and realistic, minus citations. Therefore, this thread is slated for closure.

Regards,
721

This post has been edited by SevenTwentyOne: Feb 20 2011, 10:48 PM