Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Only people who earn a lot of money are successful.
The notion of success holds different meanings for different people. Such meanings have changed over time. Actually many propose that processing an abundance of money implies success. However, this view is rendered obsolete in the minds of those individuals who hold that one individual's success can not be measured by money.
Material possession has been accepted as the measurement of success or social status. When we refer to someone we tend to mention how much money he owns and thereby believe this individual to be quite successful if he is wealthy. In addition to this concept, owning a lot of money is typically related to one's work ability and thus some people may consider money as a prime measurement of one's success.
However, this view has changed recently as many people begin to recognize that money in many cases can not bring either health, happiness and success itself. A more precise, contemporaneous definition of success means doing the things one perceives are valuable to themselves and beneficial for others. The winner of the Nobel prize for peace may think he has achieved success although he is rewarded little financial benefit. A person who makes an effort to save animals on the edge of extinction may also think he has gained success even though he may have expended all of his money on the career.
Another individual may define success as being able to make artistic masterpieces being accepted by public. As a composer, success is having his work praised by adoring fans. Similarly, holding an exhibition in a famous art gallery may connote success for a painter. If success can be measured by money, few scientists are rich by today's standards. Still, they feel themselves to be successful if their work are recognised. Additionally, there are many famous humanitarians who are not so rich. Mother Theresa was one. Certainly, no one would say she was not successful.
Sometimes success can be accompanied with money, it maybe a consequence; but money is not
Material possession has been accepted as the measurement of success or social status. When we refer to someone we tend to mention how much money he owns and thereby believe this individual to be quite successful if he is wealthy. In addition to this concept, owning a lot of money is typically related to one's work ability and thus some people may consider money as a prime measurement of one's success.
However, this view has changed recently as many people begin to recognize that money in many cases can not bring either health, happiness and success itself. A more precise, contemporaneous definition of success means doing the things one perceives are valuable to themselves and beneficial for others. The winner of the Nobel prize for peace may think he has achieved success although he is rewarded little financial benefit. A person who makes an effort to save animals on the edge of extinction may also think he has gained success even though he may have expended all of his money on the career.
Another individual may define success as being able to make artistic masterpieces being accepted by public. As a composer, success is having his work praised by adoring fans. Similarly, holding an exhibition in a famous art gallery may connote success for a painter. If success can be measured by money, few scientists are rich by today's standards. Still, they feel themselves to be successful if their work are recognised. Additionally, there are many famous humanitarians who are not so rich. Mother Theresa was one. Certainly, no one would say she was not successful.
Sometimes success can be accompanied with money, it maybe a consequence; but money is not