User:Depaardenstal/sandbox

'''The success paradox ''' The success paradox explains why reflection is hard when it matters, i.e. in case of success one’s wisdom is of greater importance, yet harder to gain. As such the success paradox is not a theoretical paradox that consist of seemingly compelling reasoning for a contradictory or otherwise absurd conclusion. Instead, it is a practical paradox that can be expressed as a figure of speech (common in Zen Buddhism and used by writers such as Scott Fitzgerald to get a better understanding of human reality). The success paradox consists of two sides. One: the more successful we become, the more important our thoughts and reflections are, because our wisdom matters more and more. Two: as we strive for achievements and achieve more, reflection becomes harder.

'''Those with power should be wise ''' The idea that the more successful we become, the more important it becomes to be wise and that wisdom can be attained through reflection, has been with us at least since Plato. In the context of his political philosophy, Plato writes that until

“philosophers rule as kings in cities or those who are now called kings and leading men genuinely and adequately philosophise, that is until political power and philosophy entirely coincide…cities will have no rest from evils…nor, I think, will the human race”

In other words, most of the time, if you become successful, then you gain power or influence. This means that your actions affect more people and that your actions also affect people more. It is hard to deny that as your success and power increase, your need for wisdom does too.

This is not to deny that in thinking about power, philosophers have preferred other types of government. Many contemporary philosophers defend some form of democracy, but precisely because they are worried about the corrupting nature of power, they introduce an expensive and elaborate system of checks and balances in order to limit the damage that excesses of power can do. Success, and with it power, requires wisdom and reflection. This is true both in politics and elsewhere, such as business and personal life.

'''A cramped state of mind ''' Unfortunately, although success and power require wisdom and reflection, as we strive for achievements and achieve more, reflection becomes harder. This is due, first of all, to practical issues. It is quite simply difficult to set priorities if one is successful in any type of activity, and short-term goals (e.g., winning a pitch in a business environment) often take precedent over long-term goals (e.g., taking time to reflect one one’s aims and plans for the future).

Yet the problem that increases in success and power makes it more difficult to reflect isn’t just a practical problem. The success paradox is a natural consequence of the kind of causal thinking that we engage in as we pursue our short-term goals. The result is a cramped state of mind, unable to forage into unchartered territories and reflect on what matters, and unable to set itself on the road to wisdom. Striving for short-term success requires instrumental rationality, a notion made famous by David Hume as he declares that we cannot reason about our final ends (our goals and plans) and that we can only reason about the best means for achieving those ends. . Wisdom and long-term success requires substantive rationality; viz., the ability to reason about our final ends, and which is a form of rationality famously championed by Immanuel Kant. Most philosophers nowadays agree that both forms of rationality exist. Unfortunately, instrumental rationality is expansive whereas substantive rationality is modest. It is easy to judge what you need for a certain goal; it is much harder to judge what the goal should be. Locked into a mode of causal, means-end reasoning, we invite expansive instrumental rationality to crowd out and its much more modest sibling substantive rationality and we allow instrumental rationality to colonise territories previously occupied by a mode of thinking that brings wisdom.

Also, Hannah Arendt delineates the tension between wanting (being ambitious, aiming for results) and thinking, for both mental activities display different tonalities. Wanting is active, impatient and moving, while thinking is serene, quiet and calm. It requires practice to harmonise the two and not be limited by the success paradox.

'''The price of the success paradox ''' The price of the success paradox in our contemporary world is rather high. Not just the burn-outs, but also the rat-race, a never-ending quest for more, on a micro, macro and meso level are symptoms of the success paradox. We seem caught in our own ambitions, like a carrot on a stick tight to our backs. Whilst nailing the success paradox prevents meaningless results. It constantly puts our achievements against a non-instrumental frame of reference, allowing us to maintain or regain freedom of mind and interpret our reality more adequately.

'''Solution ''' A possible solution is the training of good habits. One of the seven habits of highly effective people, for instance, is to put first things first; which in the context of an attempt to overcome the success paradox, requires spending ample time and resources on reflection. This is a partial solution in the sense that although it opens up the mind to non-instrumental, substantive thinking, it does not improve or aid substantive rational reflection itself.

Examples

The success paradox exists in a wide variety of circumstances. First, we find it in a business context. The success paradox has had a role in the Enron scandal. The Enron scandal is the largest corporate bankruptcy and the biggest audit failure in American history up to and including 2001. Oversight failures of the Enron board contributed to ineffective governance and poor corporate responsibility, leading to Enron’s collapse. For example, the Enron board suspended the code of ethics to allow certain transactions to proceed, and failed to recognize the significance of some of the information about problematic transactions raised to their attention. As the Enron board focussed on business and growth, it was unable to identify what was deemed important, illustrating the Success Paradox. Second, and also in a business context, the success paradox provides an explanation of the financial crisis of 2007–2008. This crisis was the result of high risk, complex financial products, undisclosed conflicts of interest; and the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street. In their strive for success, institutions deceived their clients and the public. The financial crisis exemplifies the risk of a single-minded pursuit of success. Timely, effective reflection was lacking, again illustrating the Success Paradox. Third, we find the success paradox in history. During the four years of the First World War, 80-90% of the 40 million injured soldiers treated by physicians were able to return to the battlefield or weapon-producing factories. This may have extended the duration of the war. During the war, military physicians had a double function as doctor and civil servant. As physicians, they had a duty to care for the wounded, but as civil servants, they had a duty to help ending the war as this was in the interest of the community at large. This is the Success Paradox; as physicians cared for patients, they likely contributed to an extended duration of the war. Fourth, the Success Paradox may also be recognized in everyday life. For example, if you are trying to convince someone and are solely focussed on their argument, then you may not notice their response. For instance, you may not notice that your audience doesn't understand your argument. As a result, his message may not get across.