Fulfillment

[Volya]

Do you think that you have achieved your potential in life? Or, do you feel that you HAVE to achieve something in life? We have so little time on the planet, it is difficult to do everything you have to do, pressures and responsibilities weigh you down.

[Delta40]

Self realisation? No. I am always interested however to know what is around the next corner

[Buh4Bee]

Yes! I've arrived at the promised land and it can't get any better.

[Darcy88]

I'm the ultimate example of missed potential. So no.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I hate that phrase of "you never lived up to your potential" or "you could've been so much more," because when addressed to someone, they are obviously not true. If they were, that person would have done so. Everyone meets the exact amount of potential they were meant to.

[Shevek]

To me, there's a difference between fulfilment and achievement. Those who attempt to "overachieve" tend to be the least fulfilled, myself included. Aside from this semantic quibble, it's not really a question I can thoughtfully answer. I don't think of achievement in terms of something I have to or don't have to do; the word "achievement" rarely even enters my mind. I would consider the pressures and responsibilities I've overcome part of my mantle of achievements, bringing into question similarly to Mutatis the usefulness of the term at all.

[Volya]

I hate that phrase of "you never lived up to your potential" or "you could've been so much more," because when addressed to someone, they are obviously not true. If they were, that person would have done so. Everyone meets the exact amount of potential they were meant to.

I disagree with this. Just because you have potential, doesn't mean you will achieve it. Think of say, lots of teenagers nowadays, they have great opportunities and education, yet a lot of them squander it. They COULD have taken their education, and done something with it, but yet many just waste it. Hence they have not fulfilled their potential. You could say that their mindset means they would mean they never reached their potential, but I think that everyones attitude can be changed.


To me, there's a difference between fulfilment and achievement. Those who attempt to "overachieve" tend to be the least fulfilled, myself included. Aside from this semantic quibble, it's not really a question I can thoughtfully answer. I don't think of achievement in terms of something I have to or don't have to do; the word "achievement" rarely even enters my mind. I would consider the pressures and responsibilities I've overcome part of my mantle of achievements, bringing into question similarly to Mutatis the usefulness of the term at all.

I think that everyone should achieve something, although not always in the context of say, getting good grades, or a good job, or lots of money and the like. I feel as though I have to achieve something with my life, or it will be worthless. I don't want to become rich and famous or anything like that, but I want to be able to change peoples lives for the better.

[Lokasenna]

I'm happy with my life. If I wasn't, I'd change it. Sure, I'm never going to achieve some of the dreams I had as a young man, but life is about compromise. My dreams have become more prosaic, but are that much more obtainable as a result. I want, along I suspect with the vast majority of mankind, a quiet, peaceful and happy life.

[Alexander III]

I hate that phrase of "you never lived up to your potential" or "you could've been so much more," because when addressed to someone, they are obviously not true. If they were, that person would have done so. Everyone meets the exact amount of potential they were meant to.

I agree, judge the man by his deeds, nothing more or less. I cannot help but feel that if more teachers had spent more time telling their pupils, that you are only what you have done, you are not what you could or may or will do, you are what you have show yourself to be - it would have been productive to not raising a generation of self-initilied hipster douches.

As the Romans used to say, a man's virtue is seen in acting. Not his "acts" but "acting" as in a constant and unending process not one of past glory or future potential

[LitNetIsGreat]

Loka sums up my thoughts with the quiet, peaceful and happy life angle. That to me means I just don't want any stress or hassle (i.e. work) but while I'm still a wage slave I'll only get that sort of fulfilment in snatches (i.e. holidays) - 'retirement' must be the greatest word in the English language.

[E.A Rumfield]

It's all about the now. Life is one infinite apocalypse. A series of moments just waiting to end. If you truly understand the meaning of living in the moment you can't be disappointed.

[Darcy88]

I agree, judge the man by his deeds, nothing more or less. I cannot help but feel that if more teachers had spent more time telling their pupils, that you are only what you have done, you are not what you could or may or will do, you are what you have show yourself to be - it would have been productive to not raising a generation of self-initilied hipster douches.

As the Romans used to say, a man's virtue is seen in acting. Not his "acts" but "acting" as in a constant and unending process not one of past glory or future potential

I don't agree. I've made the acquaintance of many persons who were intelligent and creative but who wound up working in crappy jobs and giving up on their dreams. I myself may end up this way. I was offered scholarships, effusively praised by every professor, highly respected by all students, have had my creative endeavours received with acclaim by the intelligent people who have been exposed to them, and yet I could easily see myself going nowhere in life.

I've met homeless people who were wickedly smart and creative but due to mental illness or substance abuse wound up at the bottom of society.

Potential is real and it can be squandered, missed.

[Shevek]

I think that everyone should achieve something, although not always in the context of say, getting good grades, or a good job, or lots of money and the like. I feel as though I have to achieve something with my life, or it will be worthless. I don't want to become rich and famous or anything like that, but I want to be able to change peoples lives for the better.

I guess this is why I think achievement is a useless term. There are plenty of concrete motivations to get good grades, get a good job, raise a happy and healthy family, and help others. A couple of posters have already stated some. Doing something to "achieve" just seems banal, like there's no value beyond writing a book or getting married aside from how it is ranked on your List Of Achievements.

I suspect this fixation on achievement, which was emphasized in my high school and even still in my university, has a lot to do with the self-esteem movement. Apparently there's an a priori potential we are obligated to meet, and once we meet this potential we will feel good about ourselves. Our quest will be finished. I find this strange.

[Volya]

I guess this is why I think achievement is a useless term. There are plenty of concrete motivations to get good grades, get a good job, raise a happy and healthy family, and help others. A couple of posters have already stated some. Doing something to "achieve" just seems banal, like there's no value beyond writing a book or getting married aside from how it is ranked on your List Of Achievements.

I suspect this fixation on achievement, which was emphasized in my high school and even still in my university, has a lot to do with the self-esteem movement. Apparently there's an a priori potential we are obligated to meet, and once we meet this potential we will feel good about ourselves. Our quest will be finished. I find this strange.

I'm not talking about achieving what other people want you too, nor is my question focused entirely on achievement. What I mean is, in your life, surely you want to do SOMETHING of worth, so that people will remember you for the good things you have done. If you have the ability and the potential to do great things, and help others, then it seems almost selfish or lazy not to.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I disagree with this. Just because you have potential, doesn't mean you will achieve it. Think of say, lots of teenagers nowadays, they have great opportunities and education, yet a lot of them squander it. They COULD have taken their education, and done something with it, but yet many just waste it. Hence they have not fulfilled their potential. You could say that their mindset means they would mean they never reached their potential, but I think that everyones attitude can be changed.
But now you're just talking about hypotheticals. I could have gotten better grades by working harder and gotten into a better school. But I didn't, and there's no way to know if I could have (the previous statement is unprovable). How could I squander potential when I can't even be sure what not squandering that hypothetical potential means? If someone is really smart and talented and they decide not to take advantage, that's not them wasting potential, that's them making a decision on their life.

I guess all I'm saying is that talking about someone's "potential" is stupid and irrelevant.

Plus, living up to one's "potential" and being constrained by medical issues and/or one's socie-economic position is different. "Potential" means that one could do things differently and end up with a different outcome under the exact same circumstances as before. Of course a homeless mentally disabled man would be able to achieve more if he was wealthy and had a stable mind. That's not potential, though, that's just wishful thinking.

This talk of potential seems to go along the lines of the idealistic idea of "If you put your mind to it, you can do anything," or telling a kid that he can be anything he wants to be when he grows up if he works hard enough, both of which are completely false.

[tonywalt]

I agree with Mutatis and Neely. Not everyone with the intelligence and/or savvy want to live up to a potential, which is measured primarily in profiled achievement, money, and status. The sort of stress and pressure that comes with such position wears many down.

Let's say there are any number of intelligent and savvy litnetters capable of great things in the commerical world, but knowing what I know, they would not want that kind of job/position/business as they may not be comfortable or have the appetite for that level of stress, unease, pressure, and politics (I have a longer list but I will not bore you)- and believe me those conditions come with any high level position - even if your the proprietor.

I really admire those who figure out that happiness, contentment, and inner peace is much more important than the rat race.

[Buh4Bee]

We can talk about IQ and personality traits, but I also like to consider the environment someone grows up in. I believe in many cases, if a child is “nurtured” they will independently reach their full potential- whatever that is.

On the other hand, environment may have nothing to do with success or lack of success and such factors as IQ and personality traits could be considered. For example; “Wow! That person grew up in poverty in a broken home, and look, he became a senator.” On the other hand, “Look at that bum, he grew up with every possible hand out and still didn’t make anything of himself.” The one that makes it may be very smart and the one that doesn’t may be completely unmotivated, but it’s not an enviromental flaw.

To reach your full potential implies a finite time limit. Maybe say, by the time you are 35, you should have done something concrete with your life that you can measure in terms of achievements. (Such achievements may be getting that degree, successful career or a functional family.) What defines reaching one’s utmost potential is open for debate, but I think it is mostly measured by self-satisfaction. This I think is a kind of fulfillment- one that you can be arrogant and smug about. Why the hell not, you earned it.