Philosophy, Intellect and the freedom to fail?

I hold a philosophy that others have lambasted me for - a person is allowed to fail.

A person does not have to be the best, or even succeed. Taken to its logical limit, A person does not even have to participate. This is their right. People are allowed to fail. This may not lead to money, success, fame or anything else, but not everything is about that.

Using this philosophy, what is a capable person? Someone who is smart, can do things, or someone who actually does things? I would argue the latter.

It's the same with intellect - someone who is "smart" but does nothing is not as smart as another who is "less intellectual" but actually acts or achieves something.

Where am I going with this? Nowhere. It's just a blog post.

Comments

You wrote:
I hold a philosophy that others have lambasted me for - a person is allowed to fail.

A person does not have to be the best, or even succeed. Taken to its logical limit, A person does not even have to participate. This is their right. People are allowed to fail. This may not lead to money, success, fame or anything else, but not everything is about that.

Using this philosophy, what is a capable person? Someone who is smart, can do things, or someone who actually does things? I would argue the latter.

Sane with intellect - someone who is "smart" but does nothing is not as smart as another who actually acts or achieves something.

Where am I going with this? Nowhere. It's just a blog post.

What about being happy? Does this philosophy lead to being happy?
Is this still your philosophy? and why is this your philosophy? Is it because because you are like that, that you choose for it to become a philosophy? or it because you have seen others use this philosophy that you choose to aspire to it?

So people who use this philosophy have a role model?
Why would you argue with someone who actually acts and achieves something?