Mediocrity tends to be given a rather unfair treatment by the intellectuals. I think that mediocrity is something laudable, at least in politics, because it ensures a weak state and a free people. The demands of excellence in politics on the part on socialist theorists, have lead to totalitarian dictatorships. Should we celebrate mediocrity as the highest virtue?.
2007-06-27 03:35:50 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
It is possible to (it has been done before: the Renaissance) use antiquity to move forward. This requires excellence in the form of scholarship and innovative/imaginative reasoning, which is not likely to take place within the public sphere. And it is within the public sphere that your mediocrity becomes laudable, deemed worthy of celebration, promotion, ect. Deeds viewed as excellent in the public sphere are sure to mark the excellent man for immediate marginalization. There is no place for a visibly excellent man in modernity, except in private study and contemplation. To participate in the public sphere this man must cloak his excellence.
For the "We" there is only what is known, familiar, and conventional -- easily converted into a image for consumption by the masses. This visible image of "what is" has not been significantly altered since the Enlightenment philosophers were able to "undo" the aristocratic monopoly on virtue. That the image of virtue persisted is no surprise. Not surprising, either, is how easily the image was appropriated by the solid, always striving, profit oriented, merchant classes.
For the "I" that can strive past the "We"... a vast and barely conceivable treasure.
2007-06-27 04:42:06 · answer #1 · answered by Baron VonHiggins 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not. Socialism is the antithesis of capitolism which does promote excellence through competition. Socialism actually promotes mediocrity by mandating equality.
Promoting excellence and achievement help not only the individual but society as well.
Now "balance" would be a better ideal to achieve.
2007-06-27 11:21:24 · answer #2 · answered by patodelamuerte 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why should we settle for what is mediocre? If we promote it too often, it becomes, in the minds of some, okay if we don't give something all of our effort. I think that we should promote people giving everything they've got, and if the result of that ends up "mediocre", at least that person can say that they tried their best.
2007-06-27 10:47:20 · answer #3 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Mediocrity is being completely satisfied with what you have, and not always coveting what is on the other side of the fence!
2007-07-01 10:10:05 · answer #4 · answered by jaded 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We do, it's called the CBS prime time lineup.
2007-07-01 00:02:23 · answer #5 · answered by Timothy Y 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, we should let it be just as idiocy and intelligence or power and weakness.
2007-06-27 10:42:34 · answer #6 · answered by shmux 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Don't be such a mediocre fool. Use your brain if you have one.
2007-06-27 10:39:54 · answer #7 · answered by chameleon 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋