Maybe we don’t need audacious goals to define us.

Don’t get hung up on your views of how things “should be” because you will miss out on learning how they really are. —R. Dalio

I may slowly be coming to the realization that the idea of Napoleon Hill’s definite chief aim as an essential driving force toward success is just that—an idea. It’s not an inescapable law of nature by itself. What am I truly missing if I don’t have a single, over-arching purpose as the supreme source of motivation in my life? Why are the professional, academic, and personal life changing goals I have set for myself not enough?

I think sometimes we give too much credit to how we think the world should be that we overlook how things really end up working themselves out in our lives. Dalio’s quote brought that to mind for me today. I cannot expect what worked for Napoleon Hill to necessarily work in the same manner for me. The reality is that any purpose can drive us to action.

Why should it matter if the impetus of that motivation is a single defining aspiration or a series of aspiring goals? I would suggest that it only matters if your enthusiasm or desire to achieve your goals finds itself limited. If you find yourself lacking the burning desire necessary to drive change and achieve multiple goals, then you may very well be focused on too much and end up achieving nothing. However, if your passion to succeed is sufficient, then there is no reason one cannot pursue multiple goals without diminishing the individual’s capacity to drive change. In the end, all that should matter is what works for you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s