Should we consider, the average populous, as instances of perfection? — john27

Sometimes!

:wink:

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

Acting in moderation is not mediocrity. — T Clark

Hm. What's the difference then?

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"?

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

I do appreciate you starting this.

Oh, neat.

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.

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'?

is mediocrity really so far removed from "good'? — john27

Yes.

I do appreciate you starting this. — T Clark

: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.

Would mediocrity be considered evil then? — john27

We're talking about good, i.e. high quality, vs. low quality. Not good vs. evil.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Tao Te Ching — T Clark

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