Should we consider, the average populous, as instances of perfection? — john27
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. — baker
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 global mean?
We're causing global warming/CC and yet we're lacking in extremity in all ways?
7 minutes ago — Nils Loc
to act in moderation is in instant of a rationalized act, to be, in some way or another, perfect. — john27
The tallest poppy gets its head cut, therefore, it's the mediocre poppy that is the best one. — baker
Hm. What's the difference then? — john27
Hmm...What does this poem mean by "low place"? — john27
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
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.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 was mainly responding to your opening post. You said: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
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.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. — Caldwell
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.