Mediocrity's Perfection
Time and time again, in philosophy we tend to apply "sometimes", to act out in moderation, as a welcomed answer to a plethora of questions, one most notably on the organization of one's life. This is illustrated by Goldilocks, Aristotles Golden Mean, Harmony; it would seem that, to act in moderation is in instant of a rationalized act, to be, in some way or another, perfect.
Hence: Should we consider, the average populous, as instances of perfection? They are the epitome of acting out in moderation, it would seem.
Hence: Should we consider, the average populous, as instances of perfection? They are the epitome of acting out in moderation, it would seem.
Comments (49)
Sometimes!
:wink:
It's already happening. Mediocrity as the highest goal, the highest perfection.
The tallest poppy gets its head cut, therefore, it's the mediocre poppy that is the best one.
I agree with you on that, but is it, for lack of a better word, right?
Or maybe, if this is true, what reasons would we have to strive for excellence? Is there a defense for excellence?
How does one justify this claim? We could just as well say that the average populous is compelled into extreme acts from the standpoint of our hunter-gatherer ancestors (the average lifestyle for 100,000 plus years of human development) . Driving around in a private car isn't an extreme act relative to a global mean? The average human animal might as well be an absurd and boundless spirit of extremes with regard to history. But this isn't something one can blame the individual for (or one can try).
We're collectively causing global warming/CC and yet we (average joe/jane) are lacking in extremity in all ways?
Well I would agree with you that the notion of "average" is relative. That, and sometimes we do act in an extreme manner (I wish I could edit the OP) . However in the effect that the average person does not lack extremity, it only contributes to his average-ness.
Acting in moderation is not mediocrity. That's at the heart of many philosophical systems. The Middle Way is fundamental to Buddhism. Plato and Aristotle wrote about moderation. This is from the Tao Te Ching, Stephen Mitchell's translation of Verse 8:
[i]The supreme good is like water,
which nourishes all things without trying to.
It is content with the low places that people disdain.
Thus it is like the Tao.
In dwelling, live close to the ground.
In thinking, keep to the simple.
In conflict, be fair and generous.
In governing, don't try to control.
In work, do what you enjoy.
In family life, be completely present.
When you are content to be simply yourself
and don't compare or compete,
everybody will respect you.[/i]
Hm. What's the difference then?
Hmm...What does this poem mean by "low place"?
Oh good. Another chance to use Taoist quotations. This from the Chuang-tsu, Thomas Merton's translation:
[i]Hui Tzu said to Chuang:
I have a big tree,
The kind they call a "stinktree."
The trunk is so distorted,
So full of knots,
No one can get a straight plank
Out of it. The branches are so crooked
You cannot cut them up
In any way that makes sense.
There it stands beside the road.
No carpenter will even look at it.
Such is your teaching
Big and useless...
So for your big tree. No use?
Then plant it in the wasteland
In emptiness.
Walk idly around,
Rest under its shadow;
No axe or bill prepares its end.
No one will ever cut it down.
Useless? You should worry![/i]
Definitions from the web.
Mediocre:
Moderate:
I don't know, those look pretty similar to me.
Humility is a big deal in Taoism. Many verses talk about the danger of exalting yourself. Trying to achieve acclaim. One metaphor that gets used a lot is that Tao is like water. It always seeks out low places, but it has great power. In low places, things gain no advantage or acclaim. They are ignored.
If that's really true, and not just a rhetorical feint, there's not much else I can say.
There's a saying - The excellent is the enemy of the good. My way of saying that is - Good is good enough. Sometimes, when I'm frustrated or lazy, I might say - Good enough is good enough.
So much in the world is not particularly good, it's mediocre. Aiming for good is an appropriate and honorable goal.
I do appreciate you starting this.
Oh, neat.
Dang. Am I missing something? I've always thought that mediocrity relies on an average, or a moderated effort.
Huh. I see what you're saying, although is mediocrity really so far removed from "good'?
Yes.
:up:
Would mediocrity be considered evil then?
Should you kill? Never. Should you love? Forever. Aristotle said that the middle ground did not apply to criminal behavior. His rule has the same meaning as Solon's admonitions or Moses' laws. There are some precepts that you must follow if you do not want to die inside. As long as you fulfill them, how you organize your life is up to you and it may be a boring life, but it will be a good one.
We're talking about good, i.e. high quality, vs. low quality. Not good vs. evil.
I'd say this is not how we apply an "exception" to the rule. The accepted question is in the form "When is killing justified?" which shouldn't be construed as "there is always a justification for killing" -- as your use of "sometimes" suggests. There may never be a time when killing is justified, so that "average" may never happen.
And exception to normative behavior may never arise. No one guarantees that an exception will occur.
Oh true. In that regard, I'd agree with you.
If I understand correctly, "Sometimes" definitely isn't always correct. For sure. However, it (to act in moderation) has shown a striking amount of consistency in being "right" when it's correlated to how one should run one's life. So I chose it to perform as "you should always act in moderation" because that's just how I felt.
What I'm more confused with is that if, it happens to be always right, does it extend to the average person/does the average man/woman have the perfect life?
Edit: reread your reply and i'll be honest, I'm pretty lost. I'm not sure if what I said here applies to your response...Care to maybe dumb it down a bit?
I was mainly responding to your opening post. You said:
Quoting john27
Do you see how you slide from what should have been a question in this form "When is killing justified?", to "Is killing justified?", answer = "Sometimes". There is a difference.
Then you continued on with the goldilocks syndrome of an answer, etc. which should not be the case here. Those are two different attitude or reasoning.
I see. Here, let me edit the OP and see if it makes more sense.
How long is this Ching thing you've got going to last?
I've been around for 70 years. I figure I've got another 10 years give or take. So - let's say 10 years.
Much better! Thanks.
In that regard, your issue now focuses more on the response we make -- the middle, or the moderate answer. I think a lot of us want to play it safe by giving this kind of answer. We don't want to come off as the "bad guy", or having a extreme view.
I prefer the proportio divina to Aristotelian golden mean. It seems to be the most logical choice given how things are.
Tit-for-tat and so on...
Although...
[quote=Mahatma Gandhi]An eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind.[/quote]
Right. But is that ok? What's wrong with having an extreme view; better yet, what's wrong with being mediocre?
The irony is, of course, that anything can be described with these words.
Quoting T Clark
Nonsense. Taoist literature should be read the same way as Machiavelli's The Prince.
For many practical intents and purposes, it's safe. Usually, this is as good as life gets anyway.
Well, there is the striving for being excellent in one's mediocrity. It's an art to be average, to fit in, to not stick out, to be utterly non-different in one's differentness.
This is pure awesomeoness, no? Rorshach inkblot test! The story in the book is not told by the writer but by the reader!
The literary characters have two characteristics that they must possess:
1. be endearing to the reader
2. be able to overcome an adversity and demonstrate the same in the book or movie or play.
The endearing part comes from mediocrity. Everyone loves the underdog. If the underdog wins, the crowd loves it.
Mediocre guys are invariably pitted against a challenge that they are unlikely to overcome.
Yet through cunning, or via strength, or via moral vicissitude, or through blood viscosity, they overcome the challenge. Otherwise the book is a fail.
-------------------
Reading the above, I can't but come to the conclusion that books are not writing reality. They have a main character that is irreconcilable with itself. It is both a mediocre person AND an outstanding genius of sorts at the same time and in the same respect.
This is a trick writers must use to draw the reader in, and let him leave with a feeling of satisfaction, over the good earning its just rewards, and the bad, its just punishment.
This is a complete hoax, a total separation from reality. In real life the average guy is a loser, and the genius / strong man / moral giant is never a loser. Unless, of course, they oppose a another character who is "gianter" then they are.
-----------------
The OP uses examples that are replete in kind in world literature : the books are written to promote the sale of more books. This is done by writing books that readers want to read, and that is the kind that involves lies and discrepancies. The OP can't and ought not to be believed when it promotes ideals, values and general expectations gleaned from books of literary fiction.
Your judgement and mine are often at odds.
Mm. Like Agent Smith says here: Quoting Agent Smith The love of mediocrity seems to come from a casual necessity to appeal to the average populous. Almost like a global escapist project.
Quoting god must be atheist
:up:
Well, at least sometimes. :joke:
Quoting god must be atheist
Ahhh you got me good there.
Sorry... I meant the Original Post not the Original Poster. I clarified it in the beginning of my post there.
You are not a liar, a cheater, a thief. At least I have no evidence of that. I trust you and welcome your opinions.
Oh true. Well it's alright in any case, I'm more of an OG myself. :cool:
Quoting god must be atheist
Thanks dawg.
Edit: Just wanted to clarify that I do really appreciate you saying that. Thank you.
Crime and Punishment (Loser has illusions of grandeur, commits murder, can't hold it together, gets caught... what a loser)
Moby Dick (Losers stuck on a ship are taken by a ride by mad captain, a kind of loser, who holds grudge against a whale of all things. They all get screwed by Moby. Everyone dies except the narrator. Lady luck is on Ishmael's side.)
Grendel, John Gardner (The loser is a monster by birth, fated to be lonely because of his inheritance/identity, meets his fate by the hand of the hero, Beowulf, because he is really tired of it all)
Painted Bird (Loser is a lost child buffeted by the unspeakable depravities of war, tortured until morally cracked)
Death in Venice (Loser is a benign and depressed pedophile, who stays in Venice despite epidemic to stare at young boy. Loser dies of cholera)
Anna Karenina (Lady can't cope, throws herself in front of train)
Great Gatsby (Bunch of wealthy party dicks, winners, accidentally kill a woman while having a gay old time. Gatsby takes the blame and gets murdered. Can't enjoy bootlegged wealth when your dead.)
Requiem for a Dream (Folks make a bunch of life mistakes which cause them to spiral down the drain of life, now losers, to be further used and abused)
Irreversible (Lady gets brutally raped. Raper narrowly evades the act of vengeance while some misidentified person gets targeted and macerated)
1984 (Loser is stuck in a dystopic hell, lured into a trap of hope, only to be absolutely and finally broken by totalitarian control).
The screwball chaos of life, losers failing, winners failing, in strange circumstances, makes for some worthwhile reads/vids.
No. There's nothing wrong with having an extreme view. Having an extreme view is relative anyway: People are disgusted with filth! That's extreme, as in, no middle ground there. Are they correct? Yes, they are.
We have extreme views on a lot of things -- on clearly immoral acts such as serial killers, child abuse, starvation, etc.
I agree. :up:
Tragedies are for losers... to feel better about themselves. Someone got it worse. :death:
Using this dichotomy of winners and losers is a failure on my part.
Virtuous/successful/loved/gifted people watch and read what their unlucky counterparts do, whatever they're into.