Long-term readers of this blog will recognize that one of its themes is mediocrity. Perhaps the world has always been like that, but the digital revolution has exacerbated the problem. People become more self-centered (more idiotai in other words), and focus not on the long-term collective good but on temporary, meaningless personal gain. Some might think that, in such a context, being “elite” is the counterbalance. But just as “ham” and “hammock” are two vastly different things, so is being elite and being elitist. Elitism is mediocrity. It’s simply a different aspect of the same thing.
Elitism is mediocrity, only in a fancier package(more…)
Seeking simple answers to complex problems is to an extent part of human nature. Since the dawn of time, humans have had the need to find explanations to the grand mysteries surrounding them. And so thunder was the work of Zeus. Earthquakes occurred because titans were wrestling. As for seeing the moon mysteriously disappearing every now and then, that was a result of a hungry dragon. Right? Right?
Part of the issue of seeking simple answers to complex questions is related to human nature; particularly our relationship to time.
[Reflection] endows man with that thoughtfulness which so completely distinguishes his consciousness from that of the animal, and through which his whole behaviour on earth turns out so differently from that of his irrational brothers. He far surpasses them in power and in suffering. They live in the present alone; he lives at the same time in the future and the past. They satisfy the need of the moment; he provides by the most ingenious preparations for his future, nay, even for times that he cannot live to see. They are given up entirely to the impression of the moment, to the effect of the motive of perception; he is determined by abstract concepts independent of the present moment.
Browsing around Goodreads, I noticed something interesting. In a discussion on a famous novel, someone asked: “Is this book good? Or is it boring?” I must admit, I was taken aback quite a bit by this question. I have seen questions like this before, as I have seen questions like “do you like my poem?” or “Is this a good photo, do you like it?”
This is a fundamental error that can lead to some serious misunderstandings. More crucially (and depressingly) it tells me that the average person doesn’t really understand anything about art. Perhaps partly because they were never taught how to. Our “education” systems promote not critical thinking but regurgitation of ideas; not compartmentalized meta-thought (multi-layer thinking about the process of thinking) but repetition. Welcome to the wonderful world of mediocrity…
“Is this book good?” Maybe a silly horse can answer that silly question
