• john27
    693
    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.
  • Hermeticus
    181
    Should we consider, the average populous, as instances of perfection?john27

    Sometimes!
  • baker
    5.6k
    Hence: Should we consider, the average populous, as instances of perfection? They are the epitome of acting out in moderation, lacking in extremity in all ways, whatsoever.john27

    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.
  • john27
    693
    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.
    baker

    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?
  • Nils Loc
    1.4k
    Should we consider, the average populous, as instances of perfection? They are the epitome of acting out in moderation, lacking in extremity in all ways, whatsoever.john27

    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?
  • john27
    693
    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 global mean?

    We're causing global warming/CC and yet we're lacking in extremity in all ways?
    7 minutes ago
    Nils Loc


    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.
  • T Clark
    13.7k
    to act in moderation is in instant of a rationalized act, to be, in some way or another, perfect.john27

    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:

    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.
  • john27
    693
    Acting in moderation is not mediocrity.T Clark

    Hm. What's the difference then?
  • john27
    693
    It is content with the low places that people disdain.
    Thus it is like the Tao.
    T Clark

    Hmm...What does this poem mean by "low place"?
  • T Clark
    13.7k
    The tallest poppy gets its head cut, therefore, it's the mediocre poppy that is the best one.baker

    Oh good. Another chance to use Taoist quotations. This from the Chuang-tsu, Thomas Merton's translation:

    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!
  • T Clark
    13.7k
    Hm. What's the difference then?john27

    Definitions from the web.

    Mediocre:
    • Of ordinary or undistinguished quality. synonym: average.
    • Of a middle quality; of but a moderate or low degree of excellence; indifferent; ordinary.
    • Ordinary: not extraordinary; not special, exceptional, or great; of medium quality;

    Moderate:
    • Being within reasonable limits; not excessive or extreme.
    • Not violent or subject to extremes; mild or calm; temperate.
    • Of medium or average quantity or extent.
  • john27
    693


    I don't know, those look pretty similar to me.
  • T Clark
    13.7k
    Hmm...What does this poem mean by "low place"?john27

    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
    13.7k
    I don't know, those look pretty similar to me.john27

    If that's really true, and not just a rhetorical feint, there's not much else I can say.
  • T Clark
    13.7k
    Is there a defense for excellence?john27

    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.
  • T Clark
    13.7k


    I do appreciate you starting this.
  • john27
    693
    If that's really true, and not just a rhetorical feint, there's not much else I can say.T Clark

    Dang. Am I missing something? I've always thought that mediocrity relies on an average, or a moderated effort.
  • john27
    693
    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.
    T Clark

    Huh. I see what you're saying, although is mediocrity really so far removed from "good'?
  • T Clark
    13.7k
    is mediocrity really so far removed from "good'?john27

    Yes.
  • john27
    693
    I do appreciate you starting this.T Clark

    :up:
  • john27
    693


    Would mediocrity be considered evil then?
  • gikehef947
    86


    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.
  • T Clark
    13.7k
    Would mediocrity be considered evil then?john27

    We're talking about good, i.e. high quality, vs. low quality. Not good vs. evil.
  • Caldwell
    1.3k
    Time and time again, in philosophy we tend to apply "sometimes" as a welcomed answer to a series of most difficult questions. Should you kill? Sometimes. Should you love? Sometimes. 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
    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.
  • john27
    693
    We're talking about good, i.e. high quality, vs. low quality. Not good vs. evil.T Clark

    Oh true. In that regard, I'd agree with you.
  • john27
    693


    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?
  • Caldwell
    1.3k
    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?john27
    I was mainly responding to your opening post. You said:

    Time and time again, in philosophy we tend to apply "sometimes" as a welcomed answer to a series of most difficult questions. Should you kill? Sometimes. Should you love? Sometimes. 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
    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.
  • john27
    693
    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.
    Caldwell

    I see. Here, let me edit the OP and see if it makes more sense.
  • BC
    13.5k
    Tao Te ChingT Clark

    How long is this Ching thing you've got going to last?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment