Defining the word "Ambition"

The word "ambition" will often stir scorn or even fear in the minds of those who consider themselves too intellectual and too principles to possess this quality.

That is stupid.

The first order is to define ambition. By my calculations, there are four different, broad categories which fall under the general term "ambition," which I will herefrom cease putting in quotes.

The first is social ambition. In bald terms, this is the kind of social climbing often associated with people who often are financially ambitious, as well. However, social ambition is one that vies for and hungers for social prestige. Admiration from others. The ability to make others envious, which is different from jealous. Jealousy, in case this is unknown, is the fear that others are detracting from oneself. Envy is desiring what others have.

So social ambition often is accompanied by the desire to inspire envy in others. It is, briefly, achieving social position.

Then there is financial ambition. As stated above, this is often seen in conjunction with those who harbor social ambitions. However, financial ambition can be satisfied not only by marrying into it, which is often a way social ambition is achieved, but through one's employment. This in the popular consciousness is often associated with rapacious and unprincipled men and women in "Business" with a capital "B": people who hold MBA's and little else, who have no ethics and no principles and certainly no desire to advance society or their own communities. The sole concern is, stereotypically though not necessarily in reality, one's own pocketbook.

Then there is professional ambition. This may or may not result in financial success. But for those who do not hold (graduate) degrees in some specialty that does not end in "M.D." "J.D." or "M.B.A." pursuing one's professional interests and satisfying one's professional ambition may or may not result in financial success. Witness the average pay a professor receives: $60,000. That is less than people without even a Bachelor's degree who work for one of the Big Three Auto Companies under the $70/hr union contracts. And professors have a four year degree, plust another 6-8 years for their Master's and Ph.D., plus another few for completing their dissertation.

But I digress. Then there is intellectual ambition. That is obviously an ambition that is geared towards learning and increasing one's knowledge-base. It is often driven by a combination of curiosity, ethics, and a desire to improve the world around oneself.

The problem with people with graduate degrees that aren't M.D.'s (who are inevitably socially and fiscally conservative--the worst of Nimbyism), J.D.'s or MBA's is that they scorn people with the degrees just mentioned. People with MBA's are viewed as unprincipled, selfish, self-centered and rapacious. Like Bush and his ilk. M.D.'s are too conservative. And J.D.'s are viewed as overpaid hired guns. They can be bought and sold.

This is the wrong outlook. People are naturally ambitious. They want to improve their lot. Based on their principles. After all, do we really think that Obama is not ambitous? Of course he is. And he's a lawyer. The difference between him and Bush is that he has principles that include taking care of other people. Who are not exactly like him. Something that Conservatives just don't understand. He doesn't care if they aren't Black, he doesn't care if they aren't educated, and he certainly doesn't care if they voted for him. He still wants to take care of them as their President.

That's something that annoying intellectuals just don't understand. That they need to take responsibility for their ambition. Just because one doesn't desire to rape a small country of all its resources, including its labor force, does not mean one doesn't "have ambition." It merely means one doesn't have a particular kind of ambition, the kind that cares nothing for anyone else but oneself.

Ambition is not something that only people who work on Wall Street have. Activists have it. Professors have it. It is the principles and ethics one chooses to guide that ambition that matters. That is the crux of the issue. If one wants to be wealthy, that in itself is neither good nor bad. It is the way one achieves that wealth, and what one does with it that is the issue.

And it is not that desiring to attain social prestige, or even power in one's work is bad. It is how one acquires it and how one wields it that is at issue. I often hear people who consider themselves "above" having ambition aver that they want to be rich. They want to have the power to sway opinions about social issues they deem important. That is ambition. The question is, are you clear enough to achieve it? And that means can you take responsibility for having ambition, and wielding it in a socially responsible way?