How long is this Ching thing you've got going to last? — Bitter Crank

I've been around for 70 years. I figure I've got another 10 years give or take. So - let's say 10 years.

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. — john27

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.

Desperate times call for desperate measures!

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...

An eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind. — Mahatma Gandhi

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. — Caldwell

Right. But is that ok? What's wrong with having an extreme view; better yet, what's wrong with being mediocre?

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. — T Clark

The irony is, of course, that anything can be described with these words.

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. — T Clark

Nonsense. Taoist literature should be read the same way as Machiavelli's The Prince.

I agree with you on that, but is it, for lack of a better word, right? — john27

For many practical intents and purposes, it's safe. Usually, this is as good as life gets anyway.

Or maybe, if this is true, what reasons would we have to strive for excellence? Is there a defense for excellence?

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.

@T Clark

The irony is, of course, that anything can be described with these words. — baker

This is pure awesomeoness, no? Rorshach inkblot test! The story in the book is not told by the writer but by the reader!

the reason the OP (original post) comes to the conclusion that average is best, is that literary characters and therefore the moral lessons in literary creations, exalt the mediocre. And not always, but sometimes.

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.

Nonsense. Taoist literature should be read the same way as Machiavelli's The Prince. — baker

Your judgement and mine are often at odds.

Yet through cunning, or via strength, or via moral vicissitude, or through blood viscosity, they overcome the challenge. Otherwise the book is a fail. — god must be atheist

Mm. Like Agent Smith says here:

Desperate times call for desperate measures! — 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.

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. — god must be atheist

:up:
Well, at least sometimes. :joke:

The OP can't and ought not to be believed when it promotes ideals, values and general expectations gleaned from books of literary fiction. — god must be atheist

Ahhh you got me good there.

Ahhh you got me good there. — john27

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.

Sorry... I meant the Original Post not the Original Poster. I clarified it in the beginning of my post there. — god must be atheist

Oh true. Well it's alright in any case, I'm more of an OG myself. :cool:

You are not a liar, a cheater, a thief. At least I have no evidence of that. I trust you and welcome your opinions. — god must be atheist

Thanks dawg.

Edit: Just wanted to clarify that I do really appreciate you saying that. Thank you.

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. — god must be atheist

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.

Right. But is that ok? What's wrong with having an extreme view; better yet, what's wrong with being mediocre? — john27

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:

Winners don't read those books or watch those films. For them, those books and films actually are fails.

Tragedies are for losers... to feel better about themselves. Someone got it worse. :death:

What do winners read (or what films do they watch)?

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.