“Success” is not a single thing but a family of ideas. How you define it depends on your values, aims, and the standards you accept. Below are concise philosophical perspectives and a short practical method to form your own definition.

Philosophical perspectives

• Eudaimonic (flourishing): Success = living well and realizing your human capacities (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics).
• Hedonic/welfare: Success = maximizing pleasure or well‑being and minimizing suffering (classical utilitarianism; Mill).
• Virtue/character: Success = cultivating moral and intellectual virtues and acting rightly (virtue ethics).
• Existential/authenticity: Success = choosing freely, taking responsibility, and living authentically in accordance with self‑created meaning (Sartre; Frankl on meaning).
• Social/relational: Success = contributing to others and sustaining meaningful relationships (care ethics, capability approach — Sen).

Practical way to define your personal success

1. Name core values (e.g., autonomy, connection, mastery, contribution).
2. Translate each value into specific outcomes or capacities (what would it look like if realized?).
3. Choose measurable indicators and time frames (SMART where helpful).
4. Weigh trade‑offs explicitly (which values can be sacrificed, which are non‑negotiable).
5. Revisit and revise periodically; life circumstances change what’s reasonable or desirable.

Common pitfalls

• Adopting others’ metrics (status, wealth) without reflection.
• Narrow short‑term wins that harm long‑term flourishing.
• Equating success only with external recognition.

Example succinct definitions

• “Success = sustained personal growth and contributing to others’ well‑being.”
• “Success = meeting my chosen goals while living by my core values.”

References (select)

• Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics.
• John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism.
• Viktor E. Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning.
• Jean-Paul Sartre, Existentialism Is a Humanism.
• Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom (capability approach).

If you want, tell me two values you care about and I’ll help craft a short, personalized definition of success.

Why this matters (brief): Values are motivating words. To act on them you must translate them into observable outcomes and the capacities (skills, habits, resources) that make those outcomes possible. This is the “capability” move emphasized in Aristotle’s emphasis on human function and Amartya Sen’s capability approach.

Step‑by‑step translation

1. Define the value in one sentence.

   • Ask: “What do I mean by this?” (e.g., autonomy = ability to make and enact important life choices).

2. Imagine the realized end‑state.

   • Picture specific situations that count as success for this value (e.g., choosing my work, setting my schedule, relocating if I want).

3. List observable outcomes (what you would see/hear).

   • Behaviors, achievements, relationships, or conditions that signal the value is realized (e.g., negotiating a work contract; deciding hours without permission; living in chosen city).

4. Identify required capacities.

   • Skills, habits, resources, psychological states, or institutional supports needed (e.g., decision‑making skills, financial buffer, confidence, legal rights).

5. Choose measurable indicators and time‑frames.

   • Pick 1–3 concrete metrics and when you’ll check them (e.g., 6‑month goal: save 6 months’ living expenses; indicator: emergency fund balance).

6. Note likely trade‑offs and constraints.

   • What other values might be strained? What’s realistic given resources? Adjust expectations accordingly.

7. Make a small action plan + review date.

   • One next step to build the capacity, and a date to reassess (e.g., enroll in negotiation workshop; review in 3 months).

Examples (short)

• Connection: outcomes = 2 close friends I can confide in; observable = weekly meaningful conversations; capacities = vulnerability, listening; indicators = number of weekly deep conversations, friendship satisfaction score.
• Mastery (coding): outcomes = reliably build web apps; observable = deployed projects; capacities = deliberate practice, feedback; indicators = 1 completed project per quarter, course certificate.
• Integrity: outcomes = consistently act according to stated principles; observable = transparent decisions, refusing unethical shortcuts; capacities = ethical reflection, boundary setting; indicators = instances of principled refusals documented, personal integrity journal entries.

Quick checklist to use right away

• Can you state the value clearly in one line?
• Can you name 1–3 observable outcomes?
• What 2 capacities are essential?
• What one metric will you track in the next 3 months?
• What’s one concrete next step?

References for further reading

• Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (function and flourishing).
• Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom (capability approach).
• Deci & Ryan, Self‑Determination Theory (autonomy, competence, relatedness).

If you give me one value you care about, I’ll translate it into outcomes, capacities, and one measurable indicator.

Why you need to weigh trade‑offs Values often conflict in real choices (e.g., ambition vs. family time; honesty vs. kindness). “Weigh trade‑offs explicitly” means make those conflicts visible and decide, ahead of time, which values you’ll sacrifice in some situations and which you treat as non‑negotiable. That reduces drift into unexamined habits and regret.

Quick conceptual distinctions

• Non‑negotiables (lexical or threshold rules): values you will not compromise (or only above a very high threshold). Rawlsian lexical priority is one model: some goods are given higher-ranking protection.
• Weighted trade‑offs: assign relative importance to values and allow compromise when gains on higher‑weight items outweigh losses on lower‑weight ones.
• Satisficing/thresholds: require minimum levels for certain values; once met, optimize others. (Sen’s capability approach emphasizes protecting basic capabilities.)

Five practical steps

1. Make values explicit: write them down and describe what each looks like in practice.
2. Identify likely conflicts: list decisions where values clash (e.g., late work vs. family dinner).
3. Set non‑negotiables and thresholds: decide which values you won’t cede (e.g., “I will never miss my child’s bedtime more than twice a month”) or what minimum level you require.
4. Assign weights or rules: either give numeric weights (career 0.6, family 0.9) or use simple rules (lexical: family > career; satisficing: ensure health ≥ X, then pursue ambition). Use a short decision matrix for important recurring choices.
5. Review and adjust: test rules in real situations, monitor outcomes and feelings, and revise when life circumstances or priorities change.

Short examples

• Honesty vs. kindness: Non‑negotiable = avoid malicious lies; trade‑off = allow tactful omissions to preserve relationships.
• Career vs. family: Threshold = two evenings/week reserved for family; outside those blocks, career commitments are negotiable.

Practical tips

• Prefer clear, actionable formulations (”I will not work after 8pm on weekdays except in emergencies”).
• Consider reversibility and consequences: avoid sacrificing a non‑reversible good (health, trusting relationships) for short‑term gain.
• Test rules with low‑stakes cases before applying to big decisions.
• Keep moral integrity in view: some values are identity‑forming; compromising them can cause long‑term harm even if instrumentally beneficial.

Further reading (select)

• John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (lexical priority idea).
• Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom (trade‑offs among capabilities).
• Practical decision tools: weighted scoring matrices and satisficing theory (Herbert A. Simon).

If you give two specific values you care about, I’ll show a short, concrete weighing rule you can apply.

The hedonic/welfare view says success consists in maximising well‑being—usually understood as pleasure, happiness, or the absence of suffering—and minimising pain. As a personal standard, it treats a life as successful to the extent it yields positive subjective experience (more pleasure, satisfaction, meaning) and fewer negative experiences.

Philosophical roots

• Classical utilitarianism (Bentham, Mill) takes “the greatest happiness” as the moral goal. Jeremy Bentham proposed a felicific calculus to measure pleasures and pains; John Stuart Mill defended a qualitative distinction between higher (intellectual, moral) and lower (bodily) pleasures to avoid crude hedonism (see Mill, Utilitarianism).
• “Welfarism” broadens hedonic talk: welfare may be identified with pleasure/happiness (hedonism), desire‑satisfaction, or an objective list of goods. The hedonic variant focuses on subjective well‑being.

How it informs a definition of success

• Individual: Success = having more net pleasant, satisfying, meaningful experiences and less suffering across your life.
• Social: Success = increasing aggregate well‑being (for you, for others, or for all), which leads utilitarians to weigh actions by their overall consequences for happiness.

Practical measurement

• Common indicators: subjective well‑being surveys (life satisfaction, positive/negative affect), balance of pleasures/pains, and proxies like health, income, social ties—as long as they reliably raise experienced well‑being.
• Temporal framing matters: short‑term pleasures versus durable satisfaction; prudent agents often prioritise long‑term welfare.

Standard objections (brief)

• Justice/integrity: Maximising aggregate pleasure can permit rights violations or demand morally troubling sacrifices.
• Demandingness: A strict aggregate utilitarian standard can be extremely demanding of personal sacrifice.
• Measurement and adaptation: Well‑being is hard to measure and people adapt to bad circumstances, complicating how we assess success.
• Value pluralism: Critics argue not all important goods reduce to pleasure or subjective well‑being (see Sen’s capability critique).

If you adopt this view for your own definition of success, decide whether you mean your own experienced happiness or the well‑being of others too; choose measures (e.g., life satisfaction scores, affect balance) and the time horizon (short vs long term), and attend to trade‑offs (e.g., immediate pleasure vs long‑term flourishing).

References (select)

• J. Bentham, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.
• J. S. Mill, Utilitarianism.
• Ed Diener & M. E. P. Seligman, “Beyond Money: Toward an Economy of Well‑Being,” Psychological Science in the Public Interest (2004).
• A. Sen, Development as Freedom (critique of simple welfare metrics).

• The claim: Eudaimonia (often translated “flourishing” or “living well”) is the highest human good — a full, excellent life realized by using and perfecting our specifically human capacities (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics).

• The human‑function argument: Every thing has a function (ergon). What makes a human life good is performing the function that is distinctively human — namely activity guided by reason. The good life is rational activity done well.

• Virtue as central: Excellence (arete) is a stable disposition to act well. Moral virtues (courage, temperance, justice) regulate passions and actions; intellectual virtues (wisdom, practical wisdom/ phronesis) guide judgment. Virtues are learned by habituation and education, not mere feeling.

• Activity over momentary feeling: Eudaimonia is an ongoing activity (energeia) of living well across a complete life, not a transient state of pleasure or satisfaction. Pleasure can accompany flourishing but is not its measure.

• External goods as enabling conditions: Some external goods (health, friends, material means) are necessary conditions — they facilitate virtuous activity but do not by themselves constitute flourishing.

• Practical upshot: To aim for eudaimonia, cultivate virtues through repeated right action, develop practical wisdom to apply them, invest in long‑term projects and relationships, and treat external goods as instruments rather than ends.

Primary reference: Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (esp. Books I, II, VI, X). Contemporary discussions appear in positive‑psychology work on eudaimonic well‑being (e.g., Carol Ryff).

What a core value is — and why it matters

• A core value is a guiding principle or orientation that shapes how you judge what matters and how you choose to act. Values steer priorities and trade‑offs; they’re different from goals (specific outcomes) and from fleeting preferences.

Quick method to name your values

1. Prompt yourself with targeted questions:
   • When have I felt most proud or deeply satisfied?
   • What kinds of injustice or behavior make me angry?
   • Whom do I admire and why?
   • If time and money were irrelevant, how would I spend my days?
2. Free‑list candidates: write 15–20 possibilities (e.g., autonomy, connection, mastery, contribution, honesty, security, creativity, balance).
3. Cluster and shorten: group similar items (e.g., “learning” + “skill” → mastery) and reduce to a top 8.
4. Prioritize to a top 3–5: choose which are non‑negotiable and which you’d trade off if necessary.
5. Test with scenarios: imagine real choices (job offer, relationship conflict); see which values predict your choice. If they don’t, revise.
6. Translate into behavior/outcomes: for each top value, specify what it looks like in practice and one measurable sign it’s being honored.

Common pitfalls to avoid

• Confusing values with goals or roles (value = “autonomy”; goal = “earn $X”).
• Choosing socially desirable values you don’t actually practice.
• Being overly vague—values are most useful when you can recognize them in decisions.

Tools and references

• Values card‑sort exercises (practical tool for prioritizing).
• Theoretical background: S. H. Schwartz, “An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Human Values” (1992); M. Rokeach, The Nature of Human Values (1973).

If you want, tell me two values you care about and I’ll help turn them into concise, testable statements of what success looks like for you.

Why revisit

• Changing circumstances alter what’s feasible and meaningful: health, relationships, finances, age, or crises (e.g., illness, job loss) can make previous goals impractical or harmful.
• Values and priorities evolve: life experience, new commitments, or deeper reflection often shift what you care about.
• New information and opportunities appear: knowledge, feedback, or unexpected options can open better routes to aims you value.
• Trade‑offs shift over time: what you once accepted as a cost (long hours, distance from family) may later become unacceptable.
• Cognitive pitfalls: holding onto old goals out of sunk costs, habit, or identity can lock you into choices that no longer serve you (see Kahneman on biases).

What to look for when reviewing

• Fit: Do current goals still align with your core values and day‑to‑day life?
• Feasibility: Are the resources, health, and time you need still available?
• Outcomes: Are the indicators you set showing the progress you intended?
• Costs: What are you sacrificing (time, relationships, well‑being)? Are those trade‑offs still worth it?

Practical review routine

• Set intervals: e.g., quarterly for tactical goals, annually for larger life aims, and ad hoc after major life events.
• Use brief reflection prompts: What changed? What have I learned? What should stop, start, or continue?
• Run small experiments before big shifts: try adjusted habits or scaled goals to test whether a change improves flourishing.
• Keep non‑negotiables and negotiables clear: protect core commitments but be willing to revise peripheral aims.

Philosophical grounding

• Practical wisdom (phronesis): Aristotle emphasizes deliberation and flexibility in applying moral insight to changing situations.
• Capabilities approach (Amartya Sen): Success depends on the real freedoms and opportunities you have, which change with context.
• Meaning as dynamic (Viktor Frankl): What makes life meaningful can shift over time and under different conditions.

Quick checklist to use now

• Has something important changed in the last 6–12 months?
• Are my indicators showing progress toward values I still endorse?
• Which trade‑offs feel unjustified now?
• What small test can I run to explore a revision?

Revisiting isn’t indecision; it’s responsive prudence—keeping your aims realistic, humane, and aligned with who you are becoming.

Core idea

• Amartya Sen argues that development should be judged by the real freedoms people have to lead the kinds of lives they value. “Development as freedom” treats expansion of substantive opportunities (capabilities) as both the primary end and the principal means of development. (Sen, Development as Freedom, 1999.)

Capabilities vs. functionings

• Functionings = the various states and activities a person can achieve (being healthy, educated, politically active).
• Capabilities = the real, substantive opportunities or freedoms to achieve various combinations of functionings.
• Example: Having food (commodity) is not enough; what matters is the capability to be well-nourished (given personal health, local food quality, cooking facilities).

Why this matters (contrast with other measures)

• Moves beyond income- or utility-based measures: money or happiness levels are only useful insofar as they expand real freedoms.
• Focuses on what people are actually able to do and be, not merely on resources or preferences.

Key elements

• Freedom and agency: People should be active agents in shaping their lives and choices, not merely passive beneficiaries.
• Plurality: Recognizes many relevant dimensions of well‑being (health, education, political liberty, social participation).
• Conversion factors: Personal (age, disability), social (gender norms), and environmental (climate, infrastructure) factors affect how resources translate into capabilities.
• Instrumental and intrinsic value: Freedoms are valuable in themselves and as means to other valuable ends.

Policy implications

• Development policies should remove “unfreedoms” (poverty, tyranny, lack of public services) and expand substantive opportunities (education, healthcare, political participation).
• Assessment requires multidimensional indicators (not just GDP): examples include literacy, life expectancy, political rights, and measures of social inclusion.

Critiques and debates (brief)

• Operationalization: specifying which capabilities matter and measuring them is difficult (response: procedural/public reasoning; Nussbaum offers a specified list).
• Paternalism concerns: who selects valued capabilities? Sen emphasizes public reasoning and democratic deliberation.
• Trade-offs and prioritization remain contested.

Further reading

• Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom (1999).
• Sen, “Commodities and Capabilities” (1985).
• Martha Nussbaum, Creating Capabilities (2011) — complementary account proposing a specified list.
• Ingrid Robeyns, “The Capability Approach: a theoretical survey” (2005) — helpful overview.

Short formulation “Success = meeting my chosen goals while living by my core values” combines two commitments: (1) being agentic and intentional about what you aim to achieve, and (2) ensuring the means and ends are consistent with what you judge important. It ties accomplishment to integrity and long‑term well‑being rather than to mere outcomes or external markers.

Key components

• Chosen goals: concrete aims you adopt through your own reflection (career milestones, health targets, relationships, projects). These make success measurable and agent‑directed. Goal theory and practical reason emphasize setting ends you endorse (Aristotle: practical wisdom/phronesis).
• Core values: your enduring commitments (honesty, autonomy, compassion, excellence). Values govern how you pursue goals and which goals you accept as legitimate (Kantian respect for persons; virtue ethics on character).
• The conjunction: a goal reached by violating your values is a “success” only in a narrow sense (e.g., status or wealth) and may feel hollow or morally problematic. Conversely, following values without concrete aims can lack direction. Real success integrates both.

Why this is attractive philosophically

• Balances consequentialist and deontological concerns: you care about outcomes but not at any cost (cf. Mill vs. Kant).
• Anchors achievement in character and meaning (virtue ethics; Frankl on meaning).
• Encourages sustainable flourishing rather than short‑term wins.

How to apply it (practical steps)

1. Specify 2–4 core values (e.g., integrity, connection).
2. Translate each into behaviours or constraints (e.g., “I won’t lie to win clients”; “I’ll reserve Sundays for family”).
3. State 1–3 concrete goals and test alignment: would pursuing each goal require breaching any constraint?
4. If conflict arises, decide by hierarchy (non‑negotiables), compromise rules, or revise goals. Use reflective equilibrium: adjust goals or values for coherence.
5. Review periodically and adjust as life circumstances change.

Examples

• Career promotion + integrity: pursue promotion by improving skills and networking honestly; reject tactics that require deception.
• Fitness + relationships: aim to train for a marathon while scheduling workouts that don’t consistently crowd out family time (trade‑offs accepted explicitly).

Common pitfalls to avoid

• Adopting goals imposed by others without value alignment.
• Treating values as merely instrumental (e.g., “I’ll be honest only if it helps my image”).
• Ignoring long‑term costs for short‑term measurable wins.

Further reading

• Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (practical wisdom, flourishing).
• Viktor E. Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning (meaning as guide to goals).
• Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom (values, capabilities, and choice).

If you want, tell me two values you care about and one goal; I’ll show how to test alignment and draft a short personal definition of success.

What it means

• Equating success only with external recognition is treating praise, status, awards, money, or visible outcomes as the sole proof you’ve “made it.” Success becomes other‑dependent rather than tied to your values, growth, or well‑being.

Why this is problematic

• Fragility and loss of control: External recognition depends on others’ tastes, luck, or social trends — not on your agency. When approval disappears, so does your sense of success.
• Inauthenticity: Prioritizing others’ judgments can push you to act against your values or genuine interests (an existential and authenticity worry; cf. Sartre).
• Distorted incentives: It encourages chasing positional goods and short‑term signaling (status competition) rather than substantive achievements (Fred Hirsch, 1976).
• Hedonic treadmill and social comparison: Visible rewards quickly become baseline expectations; you keep needing more recognition to feel the same satisfaction (Brickman & Campbell). Social comparison increases envy and reduces well‑being (Festinger).
• Undermines flourishing: Psychological research (Self‑Determination Theory — Deci & Ryan) shows that focusing on extrinsic goals tends to reduce autonomy, mastery, and relatedness, harming long‑term well‑being.

Philosophical touchstones

• Aristotle: flourishing (eudaimonia) is about realized capacities and internal goods, not mere reputation (Nicomachean Ethics).
• MacIntyre: distinguishes internal goods (intrinsic to practices) from external goods (status, money) — the latter can corrupt practices (After Virtue).
• Existentialists (Sartre): authenticity requires owning your ends, not living for others’ approval.

How to avoid the trap (practical steps)

• Make internal metrics: pair external markers with intrinsic indicators (learning, growth, meaningful relationships).
• Clarify non‑negotiables: decide which values won’t be traded for recognition.
• Focus on process not just outcomes: track habits, skills, and contributions rather than applause.
• Limit visibility pressure: reduce comparison triggers (e.g., social media) and seek feedback from trusted mentors, not the crowd.
• Reassess periodically: adjust how much weight you give external recognition as circumstances and goals change.

Selected references

• Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics.
• Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). “The ‘What’ and ‘Why’ of Goal Pursuits.” Psychological Bulletin.
• Brickman, P., & Campbell, D. T. (1971). “Hedonic Relativism and Planning the Good Society.”
• Festinger, L. (1954). “A Theory of Social Comparison Processes.”

If you tell me one external recognition you care about, I can suggest internal metrics to balance it.

Meaning in one line

• It refers to pursuing immediate, limited gains (a promotion, quick profit, a public accolade, short-lived pleasure) in ways that reduce your capacity to flourish over time (health, character, relationships, freedom, meaning).

Why this is a problem (mechanisms)

• Present bias / hyperbolic discounting: we overweight immediate rewards relative to future ones, so short wins look disproportionately attractive (behavioral econ: Laibson).
• Misplaced metrics: treating narrow indicators (salary, likes, test scores) as the whole goal ignores broader goods that constitute flourishing (instrumental vs. intrinsic goods).
• Opportunity costs and path dependence: time, energy, and habits spent on short wins block alternatives that build long‑term capacities.
• Hedonic treadmill: short pleasures are quickly adapted to, prompting escalating pursuit without added flourishing (Kahneman).
• Erosion of capacities: repeated short‑term tradeoffs (sleep loss, cutting relationships, ethical compromises) degrade the faculties needed for sustained well‑being (character, health, social trust).

Concrete examples

• Taking excessive overtime for a raise, then burning out and losing long‑term career prospects and health.
• Chasing social media validation (likes, followers) while neglecting deep friendships.
• Choosing immediate consumption (status goods on credit) that creates long-term debt and insecurity.
• Shortcutting learning to get credentials rather than mastering skills — later stagnation.
• Crash diets that yield quick weight loss but impair metabolism and long‑term health.

How to avoid it (practical moves)

• Clarify long‑term values/ends (what counts as flourishing for you).
• Use long‑horizon indicators (health metrics, relationship quality, skill mastery) alongside short metrics.
• Precommit and create friction for tempting short wins (e.g., autopilot savings, limited work hours).
• Weigh opportunity costs explicitly before choices: what will this preclude later?
• Build habits and non‑negotiables that protect capacities (sleep, exercise, time with loved ones).
• Regularly review and recalibrate goals as circumstances change.

Philosophical note

• Aristotle’s idea of eudaimonia emphasizes sustained activity in pursuit of human excellences; short, narrow wins can be means rather than constitutive of flourishing (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics).

Select references

• Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics.
• David Laibson, “Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting” (1997).
• Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011).

If you want, give one short-term win you’re tempted by and one long-term value you care about; I’ll help map the trade‑offs and a simple safeguard.

One‑sentence summary Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics argues that the highest human good (eudaimonia, often translated “flourishing” or “living well”) is achieved by exercising reason to develop moral and intellectual virtues, found in a life of activity in accordance with excellence.

Key points

• The goal: Eudaimonia — a complete, self‑sufficient human flourishing realized over a whole life, not a momentary feeling or mere pleasure.
• The function argument: Humans have a distinctive function (rational activity). Good human life is performing that function well—i.e., acting rationally and excellently.
• Virtue (arete): Excellence of character or mind. Two broad kinds:
  • Moral virtues (courage, temperance, justice, etc.) formed by habituation and concerned with passions and actions.
  • Intellectual virtues (wisdom, understanding, practical wisdom/phronesis) developed by teaching and reason.
• Doctrine of the mean: Moral virtues are means between excess and deficiency (e.g., courage is between recklessness and cowardice). The “mean” is relative to the individual and determined by practical reason.
• Habituation and deliberation: Virtues are acquired through practice and shaped by choices; practical wisdom (phronesis) guides right action by linking general principles to particular situations.
• Role of external goods and pleasure: Some external goods (health, friendships, wealth to some extent) and certain pleasures support eudaimonia, but they aren’t sufficient—virtue is central.
• Friendship and politics: Friendship is essential to the good life; the polis (political community) helps cultivate virtue by shaping education and institutions. Ethics and politics are connected.
• Practical orientation: The work is not abstract metaphysics but a guide for how to live; it emphasizes judgment, context, and moral education.

Why it matters today Aristotle offers a robust alternative to purely hedonistic or consequentialist accounts: success is about flourishing through character and reasoned action, not merely maximizing pleasure or external markers. His emphasis on habituation, context‑sensitive judgment, and the social dimension of the good life continues to influence contemporary virtue ethics (e.g., Julia Annas, Martha Nussbaum).

Select references

• Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (standard translations: W. D. Ross; Terence Irwin).
• Julia Annas, The Morality of Happiness (1993).
• Martha C. Nussbaum, The Fragility of Goodness (1986).

If you want, I can summarize a particular book passage (e.g., the function argument or the doctrine of the mean) or help translate Aristotle’s ideas into a personal definition of success.

Why measure at all Choosing indicators and time frames turns vague ambitions into actionable goals. Measurements show progress, reveal when to adjust course, and prevent drifting into others’ definitions of success.

SMART in brief

• Specific: state exactly what you want.
• Measurable: pick indicators you can observe or count.
• Achievable: set realistic targets given resources and constraints.
• Relevant: tie the metric to the value or outcome you care about.
• Time‑bound: give a deadline or review date.

(For origin and background, see Doran, 1981; and goal‑setting research: Locke & Latham.)

How to pick indicators

• Translate values into observable behaviors or outcomes (e.g., “connection” → number of deep conversations; “mastery” → completed projects).
• Use a mix of quantitative (hours, count, percent) and qualitative proxies (journal ratings, peer feedback).
• Prefer leading indicators (habits or actions you can control) alongside lagging indicators (outcomes showing long‑term effect).

Examples (value → indicator → time frame)

• Autonomy → negotiate flexible schedule; indicator: approved 3 remote days/week; time frame: within 3 months.
• Connection → deepen friendships; indicator: two 60‑minute “meaningful” calls per week (self‑rated); time frame: maintain for 3 months, review.
• Mastery → improve a skill; indicator: complete an intermediate course and build a portfolio piece; time frame: 6 months.
• Contribution → help community; indicator: 12 volunteer hours/month or lead one community workshop/quarter; time frame: ongoing, review quarterly.

Pitfalls and quick remedies

• Over‑quantifying the wrong thing: ensure indicators map clearly to your value (don’t count “likes” as meaning).
• Setting impossibly high targets: scale difficulty so early wins build momentum.
• Ignoring qualitative change: complement numbers with reflection (weekly journal, quarterly review).

Practical steps to implement

1. Pick 1–3 core values.
2. For each, write a specific indicator and a realistic target.
3. Assign a deadline and schedule check‑ins (weekly habit log; quarterly review).
4. Adjust metrics if they stop reflecting what matters.

References

• Doran, G. T. (1981). There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management goals and objectives. Management Review.
• Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting & Task Performance.

Core idea

• The moral standard is the Greatest Happiness Principle: actions are right insofar as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they produce the reverse of happiness. “Happiness” is understood as pleasure and the absence of pain (utility). (John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, ch. 2)

Mill’s distinctives

• Qualitative hedonism: unlike Bentham’s purely quantitative calculus, Mill argues some pleasures are intrinsically higher (intellectual, moral) and others lower (bodily). Competent judges who have experienced both prefer higher pleasures. (Utilitarianism, ch. 2)
• Psychological and moral claim: people naturally desire their own happiness (psychological), and morality consists in promoting general happiness (normative). Mill offers a “proof” connecting what people desire to what ought to be desired via the sanction of conscience and social feelings (Utilitarianism, ch. 4).
• Individuality and utility: Mill insists individuality and liberty are important because they generally promote human flourishing — so liberty is instrumentally justified by utility (argument developed across Utilitarianism and On Liberty).

Key implications

• Impartiality and aggregation: everyone’s happiness counts; moral decision-making requires aggregating effects on well‑being.
• Public policy orientation: Mill’s view supports social reforms that increase aggregate well‑being while protecting personal development.

Common objections and Mill’s replies

• “Higher pleasures” seem elitist or vague: Mill appeals to the judgments of those experienced in competing pleasures as a practical test.
• Justice and rights: critics say utilitarianism can justify rights violations for greater aggregate good; Mill argues justice is grounded in utility because rights protect important elements of human well‑being.
• Demandingness and calculation: critics complain utilitarianism is overly demanding and hard to compute; Mill emphasizes rules, moral education, and social institutions to guide action without constant calculation.

Modern notes

• Mill’s text is compatible with both act‑ and rule‑utilitarian readings; many interpreters treat him as offering a rule‑consequentialist approach (valuing practices that maximize long‑term utility).
• Contemporary utilitarianism often broadens “happiness” to well‑being (preferences, objective list theories) and refines aggregation and rights issues.

Where to read

• John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism (1863). For related material on liberty and individuality, see Mill, On Liberty (1859).
• Helpful secondary sources: Roger Crisp, The Oxford Handbook of Utilitarianism; J. S. Mill studies in standard philosophy anthologies.

If you want, I can summarize Mill’s “proof” or show how his view would assess a concrete moral dilemma.

Restatement The definition says success consists in two ongoing activities: (1) sustained personal growth — continual development of your capacities and character; and (2) contributing to others’ well‑being — using those capacities to help, support, or improve the lives of other people. Together they tie self‑realization to social value.

What “sustained personal growth” means

• Development over time, not a one‑off achievement: learning, skill acquisition, resilience, moral improvement, emotional maturity. (Resonates with Aristotle’s idea of developing human capacities to flourish — eudaimonia.)
• Implies reflective practice: set goals, get feedback, revise aims, recover from setbacks. (See growth‑mindset research — Dweck.)
• Includes both means (skills, health, autonomy) and ends (wisdom, integrity).

What “contributing to others’ well‑being” means

• Acting so that others’ lives are better in morally relevant ways: meeting needs, expanding opportunities, easing suffering, strengthening relationships. (Echoes utilitarian and capability‑based concerns — Mill; Sen.)
• Can be direct (care, service) or indirect (creating value, enabling institutions); small everyday acts count as much as grand projects.
• Requires empathy and responsibility: success is not isolated self‑gain.

Why combine them?

• Normative balance: purely self‑focused growth risks narcissism; purely other‑focused action risks self‑neglect or burnout. Combining preserves autonomy and creates social value.
• Philosophically robust: blends Aristotle’s flourishing with modern social ethics (capabilities, care ethics) and existential emphasis on meaningful choice (Frankl).
• Practically effective: people who grow are better able to help others; helping others often supports psychological flourishing (positive‑psychology findings).

How to make it actionable

• Translate values into indicators: e.g., “learn one new professional skill per year” (growth); “volunteer monthly or mentor two people” (contribution).
• Use time frames and measures (SMART), and revisit them periodically.
• Weigh trade‑offs: decide non‑negotiables (e.g., mental health) and acceptable sacrifices (e.g., luxury purchases).

Common objections and responses

• “What about wealth/status?” Those can be instrumental towards growth or contribution; they aren’t the definition itself.
• “Who judges ‘well‑being’?” Combine objective indicators (health, capability) with persons’ reported flourishing; remain open to revision.
• “Is this demanding?” It’s a guiding aim, not a moral impossibility: sustained growth can be gradual and contribution can scale to capacity.

Key references

• Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (flourishing/virtue).
• Viktor E. Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning (meaning through responsibility).
• Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom (capabilities and social value).
• Carol Dweck, Mindset (growth mindset).
• Positive psychology literature on prosocial behavior and flourishing (e.g., Seligman).

If you want, give two values you care about (e.g., autonomy, connection) and I’ll turn this into a one‑sentence personal definition plus two concrete indicators.

What it says, simply

• Success is primarily assessed by your relationships and the difference you make in other people’s lives. It centers on contribution, care, mutual support, and the quality of social bonds rather than only on individual achievement or pleasure.

Philosophical grounding

• Care ethics (e.g., Carol Gilligan; Nel Noddings): moral worth is grounded in concrete relationships and responsibilities of care. Ethical success is demonstrated by responsiveness, attentiveness, and sustaining caring practices within families and communities.
• Capability approach (Amartya Sen; Martha Nussbaum): justice and success are about the real freedoms people have to do and be what they value. Social structures and relationships matter because they enable (or block) others’ capabilities.

How it differs from other views

• Not purely hedonic: it values relational goods even when they require sacrifice.
• Not purely individualistic: success is interdependent—one person’s flourishing is tied to others’ conditions and opportunities.
• Not merely status/wealth: emphasis is on meaningful connection, mutual recognition, and enabling others’ agency.

Practical implications and indicators

• Focus on practices: caregiving, mentoring, civic engagement, sustaining trust.
• Measurable signs: number/depth of close relationships, perceived social support, reciprocity, opportunities you help create for others, and indicators of others’ flourishing (health, education, autonomy).
• Tools: relational well‑being surveys, social capital measures, capability checklists.

Common objections and replies

• “Too demanding/other‑neglecting”: reply — a relational account can include self‑care as part of sustaining relationships; boundaries and reciprocity are integral.
• “Paternalistic”: reply — capability emphasis stresses enabling others’ choices, not imposing ends.

Short example

• Definition: “Success = being a dependable caregiver, mentor, and community participant who helps others develop real opportunities to thrive.” Indicators: consistent time for loved ones, mentees’ progress, community projects supported, and mutual satisfaction ratings.

Select sources

• Carol Gilligan, In a Different Voice (1982); Nel Noddings, Caring: A Relational Approach to Ethics and Moral Education (1984).
• Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom (1999); Martha Nussbaum, Creating Capabilities (2011).

What it means

• You accept someone else’s standards of “success” (wealth, title, followers, visible status) as your own without asking whether those goals fit your values, capacities, or long‑term flourishing.

How it happens (mechanisms)

• Social comparison and conformity: we benchmark ourselves against peers and media (Festinger).
• Status signaling and cultural capital: social rewards push us toward visible markers (Veblen; Bourdieu).
• External incentives and advertising: institutions and markets design incentives that shape desires.
• Internalization and “bad faith”: we take on roles and goals unreflectively, losing authentic choice (Sartre).

Why it’s a problem (philosophical and practical consequences)

• Misaligned ends: you may pursue ends that don’t contribute to what actually matters to you (loss of agency).
• Fragile well‑being: externally anchored success depends on others’ changing judgments (hedonic treadmill).
• Opportunity costs: time, attention, and moral capital are spent on visible goods instead of intrinsic goods (virtues, relationships, mastery).
• Moral and psychological harms: chasing status can encourage unethical shortcuts, anxiety, and shallow satisfactions.

How to spot it (simple signs)

• You feel “successful” briefly after external recognition but empty soon after.
• Your goals respond more to others’ expectations than to your own reasons.
• You neglect activities that feel meaningful but don’t look impressive.
• Decisions are driven by comparison (“keeping up”) rather than by chosen values.

Quick corrective steps

• Pause and ask: “Why is this goal important to me?” and “Would I pursue it if no one could see?”
• Inventory values and test priorities: spend a month prioritizing one intrinsic value (relationship, craft, learning) and observe changes in satisfaction.
• Replace comparative metrics with internal ones: progress in skill, depth of relationship, coherence with values.
• Limit exposure to status cues (social media, envy‑triggers) and seek diverse role models.
• Revisit goals periodically; make some aims explicitly non‑negotiable (e.g., health, integrity).

Selected references

• Festinger, L. (1954). A Theory of Social Comparison Processes.
• Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (on external vs. internal goods).
• Veblen, T. (1899). The Theory of the Leisure Class; Bourdieu, P. (1979). Distinction.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (Self‑Determination Theory) on intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation.
• Brickman & Campbell (1971) on the hedonic treadmill.

If you want, tell me one goal you’re considering and I’ll help check whether it’s externally or internally motivated.

Core idea Virtue ethics treats success not primarily as achieving external goals but as becoming and acting like a good person. “Success” is the development and exercise of stable moral and intellectual virtues so that one reliably does what is right and lives well (flourishes) as a human being (Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics).

What the virtues are

• Moral virtues: dispositions that regulate passions and conduct (e.g., courage, temperance, justice).
• Intellectual virtues: traits of mind that enable good reasoning and understanding (e.g., practical wisdom, theoretical insight).
  Both kinds are needed: moral virtues shape aims and temperament; intellectual virtues (especially phronesis, practical wisdom) guide right judgment about particular situations.

How success is achieved

• By habituation and practice: virtues are formed through repeated right actions and moral learning, not by following rules alone.
• By aiming for the mean: virtues often involve finding the appropriate balance between excess and deficiency (the “doctrine of the mean”).
• By integrating feelings, motives, and deliberation: a successful (virtuous) act issues from the right motives and understanding, not merely correct outcomes.

How to evaluate success

• Success is assessed by character and continuity: does the person reliably act from virtuous dispositions?
• It’s holistic and long-term: success is a flourishing life shaped by virtues, not isolated achievements or external rewards.
• Community and practices matter: virtues are cultivated within practices, traditions, and relationships that sustain them.

Contrast with other accounts

• Unlike consequentialism, virtue ethics values who you are and why you act, not only what results your actions produce.
• Unlike strict rule-based ethics, it emphasizes judgment and character over compliance with rules.

Practical takeaway (one sentence) If you adopt a virtue view of success, define success as becoming the kind of person who habitually acts from moral and intellectual virtues—so your benchmark is character and flourishing, not only external outcomes.

Select references

• Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics.
• Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue.
• Rosalind Hursthouse, On Virtue Ethics.

Existential/authentic success treats a life as successful when you actively choose its ends, accept the moral weight of those choices, and shape your life so it expresses the meaning you have taken on for yourself.

Key ideas, simply:

• Choosing freely (Sartre): Human beings are “condemned to be free” — we always face choices about who to be. Success is not following a script but consciously choosing projects and values that constitute your life (Jean‑Paul Sartre, Existentialism Is a Humanism; Being and Nothingness).
• Taking responsibility: Freedom carries responsibility for the outcomes and for how your choices define you. To succeed existentially is to own those consequences rather than blaming circumstances or others (Sartre’s critique of “bad faith”).
• Living authentically: Authenticity means acting consistently with the commitments you have freely made, so your actions express a coherent identity rather than a role you merely perform.
• Frankl’s corrective: Viktor Frankl emphasizes that meaning is often found in responsibility to tasks, love, or suffering one must endure. Success involves responding to life’s demands and finding meaningful aims—even amid hardship—rather than seeking mere pleasure or status (Man’s Search for Meaning).

Practical upshot (brief):

• Make deliberate choices about projects and values.
• Accept the burden of responsibility and the possibility of regret or anguish.
• Commit to actions that embody your chosen meaning, including enduring necessary sacrifices.

References:

• Jean‑Paul Sartre, Existentialism Is a Humanism; Being and Nothingness.
• Viktor E. Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning.

What it is

• A 1945/1946 public lecture (original French: L’existentialisme est un humanisme) in which Jean‑Paul Sartre presents and defends existentialism against common criticisms. It’s a popular, accessible statement of core existentialist ideas rather than a dense technical treatise.

Core claims

• “Existence precedes essence”: humans first exist and only later define themselves by their choices and actions. There is no fixed human nature that determines what you should be.
• Radical freedom and responsibility: because we are not given a defined essence, we are radically free to choose; with that freedom comes full responsibility for our actions and for the values we create.
• Anguish, forlornness, despair: recognition of freedom produces existential feelings. Anguish arises from realizing we choose not only for ourselves but—by our example—for all humanity. Forlornness comes from the absence of God or any external moral guarantor. Despair is the limitation of what we can control.
• Bad faith (mauvaise foi): the tendency to deny or evade our freedom (e.g., pretending one is determined by role, circumstance, or “human nature”). Authenticity involves acknowledging and acting on our freedom responsibly.
• Universalization: when you choose, you implicitly endorse the kind of person you think everyone should be; thus choices have universal moral weight.
• Humanism defense: Sartre argues existentialism is a form of humanism because it affirms human freedom, dignity, and the meaningfulness of human projects—even without God or fixed essences.

Examples (brief)

• A person choosing a career not because of a “natural” vocation but by committing to a project; in choosing, they also model what it is to be a person who makes that choice.
• Refusing to accept a role uncritically (e.g., “I’m just a waitress”), and instead acknowledging one’s power to redefine oneself.

Replies to critics (main targets)

• Against charges of despair and amorality: Sartre says existentialism makes ethics possible by grounding values in human projects and responsibility.
• Against charges of solipsism: freedom implies responsibility to others, because our choices set examples for humanity.

Limits and common criticisms

• Critics argue Sartre’s account overstates freedom and underplays social, psychological, and material constraints (facticity). Later existentialists and Marxists emphasize structure and circumstance more.
• The claim that one’s choice implicitly endorses a universal is contested as morally demanding and possibly implausible.
• Some find the moral conclusion—create your own values—too open-ended or insufficiently normative.

Where to read

• Jean‑Paul Sartre, “Existentialism Is a Humanism” (lecture, 1945/46). For context, read Sartre’s Being and Nothingness (1943) and secondary commentaries (e.g., Hazel E. Barnes’s translation and introduction).

Key takeaway Sartre’s lecture insists we are free makers of ourselves: without given essences or divine guides, we must choose, accept the anguish of that freedom, and act responsibly—because in choosing for ourselves we set an example for all.

Context

• Written from Frankl’s experience as a Nazi concentration-camp survivor, Man’s Search for Meaning (first published 1946) blends memoir, existential reflection, and a therapeutic program called logotherapy.

Main thesis

• The primary human drive is the “will to meaning”: people seek a sense of purpose or intelligibility in their lives. When meaning is found, people can endure great suffering; when it is absent, pathology (despair, neurosis) follows.

Core concepts

• Logotherapy: a form of psychotherapy focused on helping clients discover meaningful aims (not merely reducing symptoms). It emphasizes responsibility: one must respond to life’s tasks.
• Three avenues to meaning: (1) creative work or deeds (what you give to the world); (2) experiential values—beauty, love, encounter with truth (what you receive from the world); (3) attitudinal values—the stance you take toward unavoidable suffering (the meaning you can derive from how you bear hardship).
• Freedom of attitude: even when external freedom is constrained, humans retain the inner freedom to choose their attitude and thereby find meaning.
• Meaning is concrete and specific: it is discovered in particular duties, relationships, projects—not in abstract formulas. It can change over time.

Illustrative claim

• “Those who have a ‘why’ to live can bear with almost any ‘how’.” (often quoted from Frankl)

Implications for defining success

• Success, on Frankl’s view, is less about pleasure or status and more about responding responsibly to the demands of one’s situation—fulfilling tasks that render life meaningful, even in hardship.
• Measuring success thus involves asking: What does my life call me to do? How do my actions align with that call?

Critiques and support

• Criticisms: some see Frankl’s evidence as anecdotal, the theory as under-specified for empirical testing, and the emphasis on meaning as potentially blaming victims who suffer.
• Support: contemporary research links perceived meaning with resilience, mental health, and well‑being (see reviews in psychology literature).

Practical takeaways

• Ask concrete questions: What responsibilities or projects would make my life feel meaningful? What relationships or experiences matter most? How could a change of attitude alter how I bear unavoidable difficulties?
• Treat meaning as something to discover in actions, relationships, and responses—not merely as a private feeling.

Primary reference

• Frankl, V. E. (1946/1959). Man’s Search for Meaning. (Multiple editions; see most recent translation/edition for editorial notes.)

If you’d like, give two situations or values you care about and I’ll suggest how Frankl’s approach helps turn them into a practical, meaning‑focused definition of success.