Our fine school system continues to destroy America

[Rule]

I think it'd help if you gave instances where it's not true, instead of leaving us with an ambiguous statement. Also, thank you for that [sik]. Somebody might have thought that you made the spelling error, even though in big bold letters it says "Quote from: MetaL MilitiA".

I think it'd help if you didn't post ready made platitudes.   I don't like having to exemplify something that should be simple enough that you can think about it on your own (granted, it has to be pretty simple in your case).  Anyways, here's an example.  Success can be defined as the completion of a task.  If someone does not attempt the task, does he automatically fail it?  I don't think so.  And the success of completing this particular task may be commendable.

Is complex analysis (imaginary numbers) not an important success?  Had anyone failed at introducing complex analysis?
What about calculus?  What about algebra?  This list isn't exhaustive.

No matter how commonly used that phrase is, it fits perfectly into this discussion.

If somebody does not attempt the task, he obviously neither succeeds or fails. If somebody does attempt it, yet doesn't complete it, that's considered failing. Anything you can succeed in, you can fail in, even if it's as trivial as pressing a big red button. The larger the margin for failure, and the smaller the margin for success, success tastes much sweeter.

Introducing complex analysis, is the outcome of intense thought, of somebody attempting to find an answer to an equation. I can assure you that many, many people in the past have attempted to solve the equations that held negative square roots of numbers, yet failed. If complex analysis was complete common sense, and just about anyone that would think about solving an equation that matches the above parameters could succeed in it without any prior knowledge of complex analysis, than it wouldn't be much of a success, as the margin for failure would be little, and the margin for success would be large.

As you and I both said, if someone doesn't attempt a task then he doesn't succeed at it or fail it.  The task might happen to be extremely difficult, but no-one has attempted it (perhaps because it is so difficult), so no-one has failed at it.  This task might also be very important, so if someone does attempt and succeed, then this success is meaningful.   I can give you more examples...  special relativity succeeded at explaining things that others had failed to explain.  But no-one had failed or succeeded at ever proposing a physical theory that claimed time was not absolute (with experimental verification) before Einstein.  That is an important success on its own, (for example for its philosophical importance), regardless of whether others had failed at explaining how Maxwell's equations are valid in all inertial frames of reference.

Of course, there's also just those things that are unexceptional but extremely unpleasant to do as well.  If almost no-one bothered to attempt to do these things, but the ones who did succeeded, then their success might be commendable.

So what you said is not true as a general statement.

[Armin]

I think it'd help if you gave instances where it's not true, instead of leaving us with an ambiguous statement. Also, thank you for that [sik]. Somebody might have thought that you made the spelling error, even though in big bold letters it says "Quote from: MetaL MilitiA".

I think it'd help if you didn't post ready made platitudes.   I don't like having to exemplify something that should be simple enough that you can think about it on your own (granted, it has to be pretty simple in your case).  Anyways, here's an example.  Success can be defined as the completion of a task.  If someone does not attempt the task, does he automatically fail it?  I don't think so.  And the success of completing this particular task may be commendable.

Is complex analysis (imaginary numbers) not an important success?  Had anyone failed at introducing complex analysis?
What about calculus?  What about algebra?  This list isn't exhaustive.

No matter how commonly used that phrase is, it fits perfectly into this discussion.

If somebody does not attempt the task, he obviously neither succeeds or fails. If somebody does attempt it, yet doesn't complete it, that's considered failing. Anything you can succeed in, you can fail in, even if it's as trivial as pressing a big red button. The larger the margin for failure, and the smaller the margin for success, success tastes much sweeter.

Introducing complex analysis, is the outcome of intense thought, of somebody attempting to find an answer to an equation. I can assure you that many, many people in the past have attempted to solve the equations that held negative square roots of numbers, yet failed. If complex analysis was complete common sense, and just about anyone that would think about solving an equation that matches the above parameters could succeed in it without any prior knowledge of complex analysis, than it wouldn't be much of a success, as the margin for failure would be little, and the margin for success would be large.

As you and I both said, if someone doesn't attempt a task then he doesn't succeed at it or fail it.  The task might happen to be extremely difficult, but no-one has attempted it (perhaps because it is so difficult), so no-one has failed at it.  This task might also be very important, so if someone does attempt and succeed, then this success is meaningful.   I can give you more examples...  special relativity succeeded at explaining things that others had failed to explain.  But no-one had failed or succeeded at ever proposing a physical theory that claimed time was not absolute (with experimental verification) before Einstein.  That is an important success on its own, (for example for its philosophical importance), regardless of whether others had failed at explaining how Maxwell's equations are valid in all inertial frames of reference.

Of course, there's also just those things that are unexceptional but extremely unpleasant to do as well.  If almost no-one bothered to attempt to do these things, but the ones who did succeeded, then their success might be commendable.

So what you said is not true as a general statement.

I'm sure many people have failed at discovering a physical theory that claimed time was not absolute, because they've started a thought process, attempting to understand time, yet failed to come up with the same results as Einstein. That is failure.

Anyways, somebody doesn't have to actually fail at something for it to be a success. The larger the margin for failure, the greater the success.

[Rule]

I'm sure many people have failed at discovering a physical theory that claimed time was not absolute, because they've started a thought process, attempting to understand time, yet failed to come up with the same results as Einstein. That is failure.

You don't know that though. And if they hadn't, it wouldn't make Einstein's theory less of an important philosophical success.  I don't wish to continue arguing for the sake of arguing.  I only commented because the platitude "success is nothing without failure" is not a sound general statement, and I think I've provided more than enough support for this position.

[Armin]

I'm sure many people have failed at discovering a physical theory that claimed time was not absolute, because they've started a thought process, attempting to understand time, yet failed to come up with the same results as Einstein. That is failure.

You don't know that though. And if they hadn't, it wouldn't make Einstein's theory less of an important philosophical success.  I don't wish to continue arguing for the sake of arguing.  I only commented because the platitude "success is nothing without failure" is not a sound general statement, and I think I've provided more than enough support for this position.

The larger the margin for failure, and the smaller the margin for success, success tastes much sweeter.

Anyways, somebody doesn't have to actually fail at something for it to be a success. The larger the margin for failure, the greater the success.

Thanks for over-looking both of those, both of which in different posts.

[Rule]

The larger the margin for failure, and the smaller the margin for success, success tastes much sweeter.

Anyways, somebody doesn't have to actually fail at something for it to be a success. The larger the margin for failure, the greater the success.

Thanks for over-looking both of those, both of which [are][sic] in different posts.

You're welcome.  I already responded to those statements before you made them...  But I'll give you a different example this time.

While success is considered by most as a "favourable or desired outcome," whether something is a favourable outcome or not is a subjective personal decision.  Here's yet another example...   It may be much harder for one to become the chess champion of his country than to become a medical doctor, but he considers becoming a medical doctor a greater success as it is a more altruistic endeavour.  In the previous example, you can replace chess with "Go," or maybe some incredibly obscure mathematical game that only 5 people in the world know.  I think most people take into account a lot more than "margin for failure" when they decide how a great a success is.  And some people probably don't take it into account at all.

Therefore, in general, a greater margin for failure does not mean a greater success. 

[Armin]

Point taken, yet while the margin of failure may be smaller for becoming a medical doctor, it still has an effect on how great the success for it is. There's obviously other factors involved, like the fact that succeeding in becoming a medical doctor will most likely help you succeed in life (depending on what your goal in life is). I guess you can't say, "The larger the margin for failure, the greater the success," but what you can still say is, "Success is nothing without failure," as no matter what, the margin for failure will still effect how great the success is.

[Rule]

...but what you can still say is, "Success is nothing without failure," as no matter what, the margin for failure will still effect how great the success is.

I had tried to cover that point in this comment:

...And some people probably don't take it[failure] into account at all.

All it takes is one person who believes in a particular circumstance a favourable outcome is not related to how many people fail at reaching that outcome, and then "success is nothing without failure," does not hold as a general claim.  Perhaps some people even have the reverse position -- a success is inversely related to the failure associated with achieving that success.  A general claim has to be true in every instance, and since there is an element of subjectivity associated with what one sees as "successful," it is near impossible to have "success is nothing without failure" hold with unlimited generality.

Besides, even in the medical doctor example, where there is still a degree of failure, that success surely wouldn't be "nothing" if there were no failure associated with the title.  However, I wouldn't deny that when I do something I don't think many others could do, it is more rewarding to me than if I had thought everyone could do it.