I think this philosophy is leading us to the realm of hungry ghosts - a hell realm in Buddhism where craving is everpresent and satisfaction and contentment aren't to be found.
I don't think those kinds of realm (hell or heaven) exist anywhere but right where/who we are now.
And it very much depends from how you define what being hungry and foolish means: hungry of what? foolish according to who?
Curiosity, wonder is a kind of hunger; and for some, foolishness. Not playing by the rules is a form of foolishness, and depending on the context, and on who defines/thinks of the rules.
Satisfaction and contentment are good, but have you tried unsatisfaction and discontentment? They are also necessary, for without them, there is no movement, no change, no loss of equilibrium that calls for your noticing, your contemplation, and perhaps your action. Being alive is constant change.
I always understood the line ("stay hungry, stay foolish") as a call to being aware of oneself, being curious of one's own peculiar being and wants, being aware of one's surroundings and of one's capacity to say/make something out of this existence.
ahhh!
your use of the word craving is important, as hunger itself, great hunger is what feeds
true satiation
even bieng very thirsty and finding water that is clean, and just the right temperature can be a feast and celibration.
It’s interesting that for how successful Jobs was, there really aren’t many young people who seem to emulate his life path. The guy went to an extremely unorthodox college, took some “impractical” courses like typography, dropped out, and basically lived a hippie-esque existence until Apple worked out.
This seems to me like the opposite of the typical ambitious young person’s plan today, over filled with extracurriculars, prestigious degrees, and well-worn paths to success. You’d think that Jobs’ success would lead to more people trying to emulate his roundabout path, at least superficially.
Maybe you could make the argument that Jobs was just too unique to serve as a role model for everyone else. And the labor market is a lot different today vs. back then. But I do think that his apparent lack of institutional hyper-optimization contributed to his success in a fundamental way.
For sure, the vast majority of people taking the roundabout path don't achieve his level of success.
I just mean it's interesting how there don't seem to be more young people trying to emulate his particular route. Many claim they want to be "the next Steve Jobs" or achieve the same level of success, but then just go the same route as every other ambitious person.
That's because the "independent thinker" route (Steve Jobs' route) is going to look different for everyone by definition. Whereas you can look out onto the "yellow brick road" anytime and see who is on it.
Ambition and independent thinking are pretty much orthogonal. Cultivating boatloads of both is rare, but can allow for great moonshots.
> Job's level of success. We never hear about them.
Success != hearing about it.
You don't hear or know about most people success, or failure, for that matter; even huge ones. You know about a very small subset of these. That's fame.
And I'm just not sure that "being a found of a billion+ dollar company" was what Jobs considered his own success; but a consequence or aside part of it. Actually, no one knows but him.
What you're saying makes sense, I just think GP wanted to say something else entirely and borrowed the word "success" for that.
You do hear about people making it big and creating profitable companies (one possible definition of "success")... But how many of these founders nowadays are hippie-like figures with a multidisciplinary education? Not that many, if any.
I think perhaps more people are attempting this path then back in the late 60s through 70s. However, as opposed to the mainstream vs counterculture, we have influencer culture mixed in, e.g. vanlife or travel bloggers.
It's sort of conceptually hard to be an independent thinker/doer, and also emulate others, even if emulating someone like Steve. For all those that drop out of the mainstream yet still let themselves be known via social media, probably even fewer probably drop out completely; I suspect there are still many. I hunt for obscure artists on Spotify/Youtube, and if I find a small concert, this sort of community still seems within reach.
Ultimately, it's the devices Steve had a hand in innovating that are obscuring aspects of the old school vibes of being off the grid in the present. However, perhaps our current variation of hippie vibes will feel event more quaint to those looking back from 2060 or so.
Right, but the van life people aren't aiming to build a billion dollar startup company.
I specifically mean that young people today - that are deliberately trying to be world-changing entrepreneurs, and claim deep inspiration from Jobs - don't typically wander India, take typography design courses, or go to Reed College. They aim for prestigious universities and prestigious accelerators/VC firms.
I think there is probably a lot of value in that young person doing something like Jobs (not the exact same thing), even if it's not optimized for the credentialized society. Maybe it puts you a few years behind your peers on the credentials track, but the experience will be worth it in terms of having a novel/well-rounded/expanded viewpoint.
> I specifically mean that young people today - that are deliberately trying to be world-changing entrepreneurs, and claim deep inspiration from Jobs - don't typically wander India, take typography design courses, or go to Reed College. They aim for prestigious universities
Reed is a major brand name as far as higher education goes. People have heard of it.
It's currently ranked 63 on the USNews ranking of "national liberal arts colleges", but it has much better name recognition than most of the schools ranked above it.
It was probably the opposite of an ambitious person back then. Become a surgeon or top dog on wall st or start a large fast food franchise. Always been well worn paths. If you have a million hippies some will get rich!
You can luck your way into being a super Type A manipilative boomer with good taste before personal computers became a thing, before everyone was effectively required to have degree, and knowing a hobbyist electrical engineer who's capable of making a computer from scratch and not Type A.
Luck was required, but not sufficient. What are the odds that, while bumming around, you'll meet a guy who singlehandedly built an awesome home computer, and needs someone to market it? Jobs took initiative he wasn't the only one who knew Woz, but was the only one to use that opportunity. But, on the other hand, if he never met Woz, there'd be no Apple - so, lots of luck was required.
He did treat Woz terribly in many ways, but without SteveJ, Woz's inventions would never have found the audience they did. I think Woz is OK with how things turned out.
I think this philosophy is leading us to the realm of hungry ghosts - a hell realm in Buddhism where craving is everpresent and satisfaction and contentment aren't to be found.
The kinds of people that make it to those positions of power often are hungry ghosts. Is musk happy?
I don't think those kinds of realm (hell or heaven) exist anywhere but right where/who we are now.
And it very much depends from how you define what being hungry and foolish means: hungry of what? foolish according to who?
Curiosity, wonder is a kind of hunger; and for some, foolishness. Not playing by the rules is a form of foolishness, and depending on the context, and on who defines/thinks of the rules.
Satisfaction and contentment are good, but have you tried unsatisfaction and discontentment? They are also necessary, for without them, there is no movement, no change, no loss of equilibrium that calls for your noticing, your contemplation, and perhaps your action. Being alive is constant change.
I always understood the line ("stay hungry, stay foolish") as a call to being aware of oneself, being curious of one's own peculiar being and wants, being aware of one's surroundings and of one's capacity to say/make something out of this existence.
gotta be humble hungry
ahhh! your use of the word craving is important, as hunger itself, great hunger is what feeds true satiation even bieng very thirsty and finding water that is clean, and just the right temperature can be a feast and celibration.
It’s interesting that for how successful Jobs was, there really aren’t many young people who seem to emulate his life path. The guy went to an extremely unorthodox college, took some “impractical” courses like typography, dropped out, and basically lived a hippie-esque existence until Apple worked out.
This seems to me like the opposite of the typical ambitious young person’s plan today, over filled with extracurriculars, prestigious degrees, and well-worn paths to success. You’d think that Jobs’ success would lead to more people trying to emulate his roundabout path, at least superficially.
Maybe you could make the argument that Jobs was just too unique to serve as a role model for everyone else. And the labor market is a lot different today vs. back then. But I do think that his apparent lack of institutional hyper-optimization contributed to his success in a fundamental way.
There might be a selection bias - off all the people who take that roundabout route; few achieve Jobs’ level of success. We never hear about them.
For sure, the vast majority of people taking the roundabout path don't achieve his level of success.
I just mean it's interesting how there don't seem to be more young people trying to emulate his particular route. Many claim they want to be "the next Steve Jobs" or achieve the same level of success, but then just go the same route as every other ambitious person.
That's because the "independent thinker" route (Steve Jobs' route) is going to look different for everyone by definition. Whereas you can look out onto the "yellow brick road" anytime and see who is on it.
Ambition and independent thinking are pretty much orthogonal. Cultivating boatloads of both is rare, but can allow for great moonshots.
His level of recognition.
Success is something else, not about fame, not necessarily public.
I think they were talking about financial/professional success, as in being a founder of a billion+ dollar company.
I guess so, but they still seem confused:
> Job's level of success. We never hear about them.
Success != hearing about it.
You don't hear or know about most people success, or failure, for that matter; even huge ones. You know about a very small subset of these. That's fame.
And I'm just not sure that "being a found of a billion+ dollar company" was what Jobs considered his own success; but a consequence or aside part of it. Actually, no one knows but him.
What you're saying makes sense, I just think GP wanted to say something else entirely and borrowed the word "success" for that.
You do hear about people making it big and creating profitable companies (one possible definition of "success")... But how many of these founders nowadays are hippie-like figures with a multidisciplinary education? Not that many, if any.
> I just think GP wanted to say something else entirely and borrowed the word "success" for that.
That was precisely my point in my initial response.
I think perhaps more people are attempting this path then back in the late 60s through 70s. However, as opposed to the mainstream vs counterculture, we have influencer culture mixed in, e.g. vanlife or travel bloggers.
It's sort of conceptually hard to be an independent thinker/doer, and also emulate others, even if emulating someone like Steve. For all those that drop out of the mainstream yet still let themselves be known via social media, probably even fewer probably drop out completely; I suspect there are still many. I hunt for obscure artists on Spotify/Youtube, and if I find a small concert, this sort of community still seems within reach.
Ultimately, it's the devices Steve had a hand in innovating that are obscuring aspects of the old school vibes of being off the grid in the present. However, perhaps our current variation of hippie vibes will feel event more quaint to those looking back from 2060 or so.
Right, but the van life people aren't aiming to build a billion dollar startup company.
I specifically mean that young people today - that are deliberately trying to be world-changing entrepreneurs, and claim deep inspiration from Jobs - don't typically wander India, take typography design courses, or go to Reed College. They aim for prestigious universities and prestigious accelerators/VC firms.
I think there is probably a lot of value in that young person doing something like Jobs (not the exact same thing), even if it's not optimized for the credentialized society. Maybe it puts you a few years behind your peers on the credentials track, but the experience will be worth it in terms of having a novel/well-rounded/expanded viewpoint.
> I specifically mean that young people today - that are deliberately trying to be world-changing entrepreneurs, and claim deep inspiration from Jobs - don't typically wander India, take typography design courses, or go to Reed College. They aim for prestigious universities
Reed is a major brand name as far as higher education goes. People have heard of it.
It's currently ranked 63 on the USNews ranking of "national liberal arts colleges", but it has much better name recognition than most of the schools ranked above it.
I don't qualify as young anymore, but I'm attempting to follow a somewhat similar path - doing and learning things that have no immediate benefit.
But strange as it is, I feel very confident that somehow the dots will connect down the road. Just hope I won't run out of time.
It was probably the opposite of an ambitious person back then. Become a surgeon or top dog on wall st or start a large fast food franchise. Always been well worn paths. If you have a million hippies some will get rich!
> You’d think that Jobs’ success
You mean his luck and other people's actual skills, right?
Can't make pasta with a cookie cutter
It was just luck
You can't luck your way into building Apple or Pixar.
You can luck your way into being a super Type A manipilative boomer with good taste before personal computers became a thing, before everyone was effectively required to have degree, and knowing a hobbyist electrical engineer who's capable of making a computer from scratch and not Type A.
Luck was required, but not sufficient. What are the odds that, while bumming around, you'll meet a guy who singlehandedly built an awesome home computer, and needs someone to market it? Jobs took initiative he wasn't the only one who knew Woz, but was the only one to use that opportunity. But, on the other hand, if he never met Woz, there'd be no Apple - so, lots of luck was required.
You forgot an important part of Steve Jobs journey; having a genius friend that you can deceptively take advantage of.
He did treat Woz terribly in many ways, but without SteveJ, Woz's inventions would never have found the audience they did. I think Woz is OK with how things turned out.
Not to be overlooked: The "Related Artifacts" section at the bottom has 8 drafts written between January and June 2005. https://stevejobsarchive.com/artifact/steves-drafts
I wonder if he were alive today, what he would have said to the graduating class of 2025?
If our AI isn’t working for you then you are holding it wrong.