I see that there is no limit to the depths of intellectual dishonesty and discredit you'll sink just to maintain a position of disagreement with me on such a basic fundamental truth.

One could, but then one would look silly for suggesting something so stupid as if it were true.

Or one could look stupid denying such silliness.

Perhaps, focusing on the intellectual content of the post would help.

Kevin's post is well within the spirit of this thread. Remember, this is a philosophical discussion. In such discussions, people play with ideas and thoughts while they reflect on questions. Perhaps, some are just not cut out for philosophical discussions.

What makes you think he was doing as you describe, Eric?

I agree... also it's interesting that groups of people we look back to ... writers, artists and musicians ... were often so poor. Now people make a lot of money off their works.

i have a question for rasczak, im currently at university doing a degree, i receive about £2500 a year from the government because i couldnt afford to be at university otherwise, so i technically cant support myself, does that make me an underacheiver?
I dont think it does, if a government doesnt invest in the people it governs, then what is the point of a government having money at all?

I'll chime in on the side of under-achievement being a fuzzy definition, like most in the dictionary. It implies that a general standard exists for minimum achievement, which in turn implies a collective choice, e.g. a government that decided what the standards are. Since so many are anti-government here, why assume such a standard exists that is etched in stone? Why not accept a little fuzziness?

What does it mean to be a drain on society? We all take from society to some extent or other. We drive on roads we didn't create. We drink water purified by others. Blah, blah, blah. So it's not a yes or no binary decision whether somebody is an "under-achiever", i.e. a "taker". It's a matter of drawing fairly arbitrary lines somewhere.

Another point is that someone could be a drain right now, but might blossom into a great artist or inventor later. It's good for society as a whole to occasionally take up the slack so that potential isn't lost for slow achievers or talent temporarily hindered by bad luck. It's not so much saving the person, but nurturing talent, no matter what stage of development it's in. If we leave too much to individualism then our society will not evolve.

I'm sure all these points have been made here in one form or another. Just adding my blather to the discussion.

Perhaps they have been or not. However, the way you phrase things is certainly pleasant and refreshing. Thank you!

Where would we be without underachievers? We would have no use for the word or it's kin. To underachieve, there must be achievement to compare it against. So, there would be no use for the word achieve(d)(ment)..and so on.

Competition itself is like that, isn't it? That's a different thread.

Fear may be the the best motivator for people. To see the results of underachievement in others keeps us from becoming complacent and chugging along at a high rate.

Underachievers are necessary or even vital to the drive of others.

They provide all this, do they not? If so, we need them and should keep them alive and well.

Thank you for the previous complement, rjwood.

When you talk about underachieving in a positive light it rings a different bell for me personally. I've had the label applied to me a number of times, not being particularly oriented toward academic or career "success", in the traditional sense of high grades and maximum wealth. I'm just not that interested in climbing over others to get to the top of a ladder.

I like to believe there are many people like myself, perhaps more than we realize. The U.S. is a very competitive culture, and values measurable success over all else. But the starving talented artist produces authentic beauty. Thomas Kincaid and Britney Spears produce something else, mainly money. Some starve because of a refusal to compromise art for money. Others "succeed" because there is nothing they won't compromise for measurable success.

I don't think anybody wants to prop up losers. Yet providing a base subsistence and health care might just allow creators of hidden value and beauty to eventually succeed without selling out. That's not going against survival of the fittest, it's making sure that our definition of "fit" allows for various means to an end.

I disagree. Fear is a motivator---and a very consistent motivator---but it's a poor one. I don't think I have ever seen anyone do anything excellent because of fear. Fear drives us toward mediocrity; it keeps us from taking risks. Anything that is truly great stands out, and fear would tend to deter people from standing out.

Personally, I believe fear to be always and only negative. Caution and discretion may be positive, but they are different from fear in that they are rational. Fear is never rational (even when the thing we are afraid of really is dangerous).

It's plausible to consider the idea that caution is derived from fear. I am cautious crossing the street because I fear getting struck by a passing car. Our lawmakers count on fear of punishment from criminal activity.

Discretion may be similar in that one may fear public humiliation if not discrete. A shy person may seem discrete because they have been raised in a fearful home environment.

These of course are not the only view of caution and discretion. I believe your view is also correct.

As for an example of a great achievement borne out of fear; how about out declaration of independence and constitution? Both were so carefully crafted out of the fear of this country becoming like England, weren't they?

I am also cautious because I would like to avoid being hit. But I wouldn't call it fear.That's absolutely true. I agree that fear is a motivator, I just think there are better motivators.
That's an angle I had not considered. I'll have to put some thought into it.

What would you call it?You may be correct, but I can't think of any.

Saying that does not make me a fear monger like the Bush administration. I simply believe when you undress much of what we do, fear becomes exposed.

I think I will start a thread on it so we can stay on topic here.

Learning from failure and mistakes made by others or self is far from being the same as responding to fear. The Bush gang acts on and feeds off of fear, while refusing to acknowledge or learn from mistakes and failure. There definitely is a huge difference between what you're saying and what they do.