Should The Perfect Be The Enemy of The Good?

[Uncle Joe]

[warbustdotcom]

1. what am i missing here?

Am I missing something here? I feel like there is a Zen book I should of read before viewing this post.

[Poll_Blind]

2. If you see the Buddha's poll, don't vote in it. n/t

PB

[Uncle Joe]

8. You are not missing anything and welcome to D.U. warbustdotcom

:hi:

[Renew Deal]

16. This is a Lieberman related poll.

...

Oh yeah, Welcome to DU!!! :hi:

[Uncle Joe]

22. Actually no,

it's much more than that. It's more like the psychological test where you look at a pattern and describe what you see. For you it's Leiberman, to someone else it's whether they should vote Green Party knowing they will lose anyway, to make a point instead of working within a party to change it. For some people it may contain religious connotations, for example in some parts of the world a woman may be castigated or even executed if she is raped.

[tocqueville]

3. yes but for a complete different reason

the first answer is a sophism ("is the worst an enemy of the bad - yes because without worse it wouldn't be any bad"). But perfection can be an enemy of the good in the sense that the aim of reaching "perfection" which is seldom attainable, can spoil perfectly good intentions or achievements. It's a bit like the last "perfect" hit of the chisel that destroys an otherwise magnificent statue. or as they say "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

[daveskilt]

4. Good is the enemy of Great - Jim Collins

from "Good to Great" - very good business book used in many MBA courses.

[Ignoramus]

5. yes, because no one is perfect

A supposedly perfect person would be falsely perfect and be gettin' up to no good.

[applegrove]

6. Nobody is perfect. Nobody is all good. And "perfect doesn't equal good".

But some people try. And trying to be good and living that way... is how some people function. And it isn't a bad thing. It is a human way to be. Being perfect is not adult. Being perfect is a delusion. Because humans are not perfect.

Being good and acting good and living your life through the adult processing of good information (be it spiritual, intellectual, etc.) is a good way to be. An adult way to be.

Otherwise it is just kids in a sandbox. And humanity decided long ago that it was one thing to be a child, another to be an adult. And children should not be ruling the world. Adults should. Children should be growing. Perfect people should be learning about the other parts of themselves.. to become more fully adult.

Basically.. there is growth and that is good. No growth... is not good.

[Uncle Joe]

9. Thanks for posting applegrove

it's good to see you again.:hi:

[applegrove]

10. I didn't think anyone would notice I was gone. This place..so busy and

all.

[ulysses]

7. no, but the mediocre shouldn't masquerade as the good, either. n/t

[applegrove]

11. Mediocre can be great good people. They may not be good at

anything but being nice. And that may make them the goodest person you've ever known.

Pretty much just stay away from people you have no capacity to understand. Or admit to yourself you are incapable of understanding somebody different than you... and move on with your life and leave them alone.

[ulysses]

13. erm...

I had in mind more political positions than people, no-understanding ogre that I evidently am.

[applegrove]

14. Sorry. The OP was about perfection vs. goodness. And when you said

mediocre I thought you were referring to the pov of a perfectionist with frustration with someone not perfect but kind.

Obviously you meant that a person with a heart the size of an appleseed should not be mascarading as a good person. I'll agree with you whole-heartedly there.

Words.. the internet..sorry. Wires crossed. My bad.

[ulysses]

15. no problem.

Obviously you meant that a person with a heart the size of an appleseed should not be mascarading as a good person.

I meant it even more abstractly that that. "The perfect should not be the enemy of the good" has been tossed around for years as an argument against running progressives against centrist Democrats. I wasn't referring to personal qualities but rather political positions. i.e. mediocre stands should not masquerade as good (but not perfect) stands.

[applegrove]

18. Okay. Got ya now. I am a fiscal conservative. I think you have to pay your

way. And that is a compromize of sorts. That in a democracy you do not always get what you want (or as an adult) but should expect (in a democracy) to get the basics of what you need. That means:

The rich should have access to markets to invest
The middle class should have access to jobs
The poor should have access to training and emergency funds for housing and income.

But that no one group should be spoon fed everything they need. That is childishness if the rich don't pay estate taxes or no longer want to pay school taxes.

Some progressives would call that mediocre...as compromize often is.

I don't think it is mediocre. I think it is the only way to fly. To have each group get something from democracy (in Canada all the people pay sales taxes for health care..so those that have spending money..subsidize those that don't...and preventive medicine works to help business be more competative...that is the relationship we have with each other...and everybody gives something up... and everybody has a chance at a kick at the can).

So..not to disagree. But I think the best policies are moderate. Liberal. A little of this and little of that. Just so that no one group dominates all the time. That isn't healthy.

Being said I'm a fiscal conservative... once you pay your way... in taxes and such.. you should have the most elightened and smart social programs. Programs that really make opportunity. Like good public schools. Like good national health care. Like smart economic policies so that everyone participates in the economy and every works (or gives up) to fight inflation.

IMHO

[ulysses]

19. compromise isn't mediocre in and of itself.

It does, however, imply that you get something for what you give up. "I'll sell out my basic principles if you'll just stop beating me up" is a mediocrity, not compromise. I'm not saying that that's what you're doing, that's just what I meant.

But that no one group should be spoon fed everything they need.

Ok, but where's the line between need and want? I teach kids in Atlanta, many of whom barely have a pot in which to piss. Is helping them out "spoon feeding" them? My first break with my party was Clinton's welfare "reform" in 1996. What did we get in return for that bill besides a continued ass-kicking by the GOP?

[applegrove]

20. I don't know the details of welfare reform. I do not that workfare is

often packaged as "hey - they'll make some factory give me a job at $15 an hour" and the working poor or poor are tricked that way. Till the workfare policy comes into play and it really means that you will have to take a job or an apartment that is bad for your health and security..or you will starve.

So...not been versed on Clinton's welfare reform i cannot comment. I know the neocons did in Ontario in that regard was traumatizing and meant to be as painful a social revolution as possible. And meant to crush many..into shutting up and complying with working poor lifestyle. If that is what Clinton was all about..I missed it. Cause it seem lots of boats floated like never before under his policies.. on the whole.

I don't think you can link this horrid * mess to anything Clinton did. Or his mix of policies. His mix..seemed to make the USA a place where there was opportunity for all..and when something like inflation needed to be fought..the rich participated in the "cut backs" equally to the poor. They fought in inflation with high interest rates which stopped the stock market for a bit... and resulted in some people loosing jobs.. till the economy was cool enough to start growing again. Of course loosing stock profits and loosing a job is not the same thing or the same pain. But the point is that the rich actually had to sacrifice something at some time to keep the economy balanced. They do none of that under Bush.

[LWolf]

17. Bullseye. n/t

[JNelson6563]

12. There is no "should" about it

The perfect are the enemy of the good.

[Vidar]

21. "Robb is a dingbat" wins this poll.

[Tsiyu]

23. The question is no good

There is no "perfect."

If you are asking if mediocrity should be rewarded by those who can and will do more, bullshit.

Mediocrity - when there is a better choice - should be thrown out on its underachieving ass.

And there's another question:

When mediocrity starts to lose its power, is it okay for it to launch an all out assault on superior?

Perhaps mediocrity might spend that energy it spends heckling excellence in some quiet self-examination.

[daveskilt]

24. opportunity cost - if kobe bryant can type 200 wpm

then he should still hire 5 mediocre 40wpm people at $10 and hour to do what he can do in the same time as the 5 of them since his time is has more value spent playing basketball at $187k per hour.

Economically we depend on people who are only capable of a little doing that little and being paid less for it.

mediocrity is what powers america - it should not however be what leads it

[Tsiyu]

25. Votes don't work that way

I'm a bit fuzzy on your example.

If a person wants to be hired as a typist, other skills are irrelevant, no matter their value elsewhere.

If a person wants to be hired as a politician for the people, other skills - insider trading, kneeling down to lobbies out to fleece the people, and kissing up to warmongers when the people want peace - are also irrelevant, no matter how much personal income they will bring to the man who is an expert at them.

[daveskilt]

26. exactly my point - mediocrity is a good thing - but not in government

The example is an old bschool econ intro example of why low performing and low income workers are a good and neccessary partof the economy.