> make a huge amount of money or to create something important

That doesn't mean the advice is not good. Change the telos a little and it mostly still applies.

It's possible to make something important and not get rich. I'm happy having done that and live a (economically) modest life. The most important yet contentious point, I believe, is this one:

> Be internally driven

My feeling is that true freethinkers with the courage of their convictions are less than 1%. I also believe that for most of us, it's actually something that holds one back from wealth.

I won't quote it chapter and verse, but what I believe the author is describing in the last part of this article is not an entrepreneur per se, but an "activist". Or rather, what has come to be labelled in this age of tedious conformity and wannabeism as "activism" - that being the sincere desire to change the world for the better. And all the better if that can be separated from the distraction of ego and personal wealth.

The unfortunate requirement of modernity is that money is necessary for action. Words alone may make a difference, but money helps. Since most so-called "successful" people are merely building fortunes to enable their real success, the telos or vision of their life, the distraction of making money as a step can be excused.

But I would add one last point to the article to make it more rounded.

14. Don't lose sight of your original, real motive.

Along the way many an ambitious person is overwhelmed by their "success", be it money, fame, or power. The cautionary narrative archetype is of course Tony Montana (Scarface). They forget their essential self-hood and the seed from their childhood that really drives them.

No I think you completely misunderstand the point of the statement. Its not about that the ideas or thoughts are truly free or original. That part is irrelevant, and if anything, almost assuredly false: even the most successful will admit to this.

No no, the second part of the statement, "the courage of their convictions", that is the rare part.

New ideas are common and most are just laying around in the ether to be picked up or put down at ones leisure. Only novices or fools think they're the first person to pick up a given lane of reason.

Its only the true imbeciles who decide to jump off a cliff and risk it all on an internal belief that they've 'got it right' with whatever they're doing that make it. There are plenty of cowards with ideas who never make it. Those aren't the people we're talking about.

The demonstrative proof is that everyone is free to take an idea and try and fly with it by jumping off a cliff. The rarity is that almost no one does it. The selection bias is that we only acknowledge those who do fly and not the pile of bodies at the bottom of the cliff.

And the ones who do risk it all and succeed are then derided with "you didn't build that" from people who didn't risk anything.

I feel like risk is on a perpetually limited time frame in the same way that businesses do not exist beyond 3 months, every 3 months.

The definition of freethinking that was used leans more towards “the ability to resist social pressures” than a consideration of the philosophical debate on free will, even if it is plausible that life is deterministic from a philosophical perspective [0].

For practical purposes, it’s best not to worry about determinism so much, and adopt the belief of compatibilism [1], which many institutions in society—such as the courts and legislature in Western countries—effective assume (if not free will).

The existence of original thought also matters less than the ability to effectively execute a plan to create a useful good or service, for the purpose of career development.

[0] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/

[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

If you don't believe in free will then there's no reason to discuss how to be successful.

Any `how to` discussion presumes free will as a fundamental axiom.

Not necessarily. An automaton without free will can consume and become the hundreds of bits and pieces of philosophies that are laid out in front of them. You might imagine the automaton to be like Kirby in the original Nintendo games. Never intending to become the laser Kirby, but instead being pulled by the invisible hand of fate (user input) and becoming a crude mockery of the things that cross its path.

Note that I don't believe any of this to be true, but it's an interesting thought experiment.

as I've grown older, I've started redefining my idea of "success" and "achievement".

To me, achievement is anything that you genuinely had to work hard towards, make sacrifices for, and overcome your own prejudices and biases.

Making XZY money every year can be an achievement if making money is simply not something that comes naturally to you, or something that you grew up understanding anything about. If you grew up in a business-focused environment where you were taught about money (and how to make it), you'd have an arguably easier time making money than someone who grew up with deadbeat parents, addicts, or a family that never understood money or careers.

At a personal level, my biggest achievement has been my ability to build a loving family and healthy relationships. These don't come naturally to me. I've had to overcome so many bad habits, biases, beliefs and sheer genetic inertia to get to that point. It's my proudest achievement and I'll value it more than any business I create or book I write.

I’m on a cruise ship right now. One of my biggest achievements, accomplished just this week, is learning how to reliably do a 360 on a Flowrider. I’m 57.

Next I want to finally figure out how to hit a baseball.

He presents a really narrow view of success. It makes me sad that his viewpoint includes nothing about helping other people or making improvements bigger than the individual and their bank account.

As they say the richest person is the one who needs the least.

But I’d add - it’s wise when read by wise person and stupid when read by stupid person.

Indeed. Ironically, I think making a beeline for wealth makes it less likely that you fulfill your potential. You should target public trust, and your own trust if you're short on that.

Your contribution absolutely deserves to be rewarded by the public's trust which comes in the form of money. However, money is merely a proxy for that trust, and we know you can acquire money by obtaining short-term trust. Even if you later lose the public's trust for your previous work, you may be able to hold onto that money by hiring good lawyers, to say nothing of the relationships you built that may rely upon you not turning out to be a fraud.

That said, aside from having confidence in yourself (but not so much that you cannot acknowledge mistakes), money is the best proxy for trust that we have. It's fine to go after it as long as you understand that your relationships with people are more important.

I find little value in these semantic arguments.

Agreed. If an article defines a word clearly and does not pick meanings in an intentionally missleading way I do not see the value in talking semantics. The definition used in this article is common enough even of it is not my personal definition of what I think being successful is.

Yet definitions are paramount. If we don't know what we are talking about, there is no point in talking.

But we do know what we are talking about, because it was clarified in the article.

And yet semantics like that drive massive influence over civilization — it builds into the rhetoric and narratives people affix their instincts upon.

So, there’s value in observing them.

Yes, the article says right up front what it's about.

> anyone should feel free to choose different goals in life.

I don't know why anyone would feel otherwise.

I'm glad the author separated these two, because they're frequently (though not always) opposites.