Contrast this thought-provoking excerpt with a compelling study on how gaining time influences happiness, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (see the email below from July 2017). Drawing on insights from more than 6,000 people across diverse countries and cultures, the study points to a powerful conclusion: having greater control over one’s time can be just as important—if not more so—than having more money. The same email deepens this message by sharing reflections from a former president of Uruguay, whose words bring a personal, grounded reminder of what it means to live freely and intentionally. In turn, these reflections are echoed in an earlier email from October 2016, which turns to the academic world and explores how scholars think about meaning, purpose, and the legacy they hope to leave behind once their professional journeys come to a close, with purpose intact.
PS - In light of the present context, it may be worth pausing to revisit an earlier piece that speaks to the fragile, precious nature of time and the choices that shape our lives, once more: "The best of times, the worst of times, and the times that we no longer have" https://19-pacheco-torgal-19.blogspot.com/2022/04/the-famous-clash-einstein-versus-bergson.html
De: F. Pacheco Torgal
It is worth remembering that long before this Harvard-led research confirmed the idea with data, José Mujica, former President of Uruguay (2010–2015), captured the same truth with humility and wisdom, offering a reminder that still speaks to how we choose to live, even now:
De: F. Pacheco Torgal
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/612675/summary
60 physicists of all ages working at a range of U.S. universities were interviewed in person by the author about multiple aspects of their careers, including the scientists’ aspirations, assessments of their achievements and failures, and conceptions of future and “immortalized” selves. Interviews from which the present work was drawn averaged 90 minutes in length...For the present work, attention is focused on a specific question asked of the respondents: “How would you like to be remembered by your colleagues?”
desires to be remembered by colleagues on principally professional terms increase as institutional prestige increases. By contrast, desires to be remembered on principally personal terms increase as institutional prestige declines...As age increases, desire to be remembered on principally professional terms declines; and the desire to be remembered on principally personal terms intensifies. What is more, as age increases, the percentage of scientists “not caring” about how colleagues remember them increases. The percentage of scientists not caring about how their colleagues remember them, combined with the percentage of those desiring remembrance in personal ways, is particularly striking in the eldest cohort, where the attenuation of professional emphases is most pronounced. Great scientific achievement—even in an era of modern science—has been connoted with “unlocking the mind of God”(Paul, 1980). In an absence of great achievement, morality preserves a route to salvation, identifying how people can orient themselves to the “good” (Stets, 2010). In addition, it always marks sacrifice, as though to say: “Look at what I gave up, so that others could prosper.” By invoking claims to a moral status, a scientist—relegated to a location peripheral to the major activity at the center of science—provides an excuse as well as an explanation for not having fully realized one’s own ego. Remembered as “being good” by others in the profession thus becomes compensation for comparative failure...Morality, because it is the embodiment of virtue, is a protected status.
