Today we had a most interesting debate, "This House would abolish Oxbridge". How thunderous it was too! Despite debating often getting 'stick' from its numerous detractors, today's debate demonstrated how thinking on one's feet really can provide an entertaining, intellectually stimulating forty five minutes.
The title of this post, as you will see, talks of three terms: the first and second being the two key terms of the Opposition's arguments. Namely, Oxbridge does not promote un unjust elitism (perhaps like public schools do), but that they epitomise our society as a meritocracy - ie that you 'go places' on merit, not on class or background. The Opp then argued that the Prop (who, I have to say nevertheless gave us a jolly good run for our money through two astoundingly good speeches and numerous POIs) advocated mediocrity, ie that we should be all be 'average': and to all readers who survey this post, I am sure you will share my terror at such a prospect.
The third term was the genius invention of my partner, a most esteemed public speaker and future judicial high-flyer....I won't even bother to say his name - who else fits such a bill?! My understanding of it, is a state, be it physical or psychological, where all one strives for is the mediochre, the average. It is, if you will, the embodiment of mediocrity. That he even contrived and spoke of such a term effectively blew every proposition argument out of the water is brilliant in itself, but it got me thinking: what do I really mean when I talked of escaping 'middle class mediocrity'?
When originally writing that post, I imagined a prominent career on the 'global stage', looking back down on my humble roots. I would then return years later to allieviate the mediocrity of so many others......
But the question is: is that really escaping from it, or just a boyhood dreamy ambition? In fact, I've come to believe that I was completely wrong.
To me, 'Middle class mediocrity' is neither the routine Jo(e) Bloggs endures, nor his middle-of-the-road aspirations, nor his stereotypical three bedroom semi. It is his mindset. In other words, he doesn't think how to escape from his situation, how to further himself as a person, or how to become 'virtuous' if we dare step into the realms of Ethics. The question that now begs is a simple one: do we?
I like to think that we are somewhat unusual; that is to say that we are thinkers. We ponder, consider and reflect on anything and everything, some of us 24/7 (I, admittedly, not being one of those). I do not think of us as some sort of intellectual elite, but rather suggest that we have, in some small way, already escaped from that dreaded mediocrity, or God forbid, mediocracy.
What do you all think? - am I being snobbish? Complacent? Arrogant?......or do I just state the blindingly obvious? Please be frank and honest: as that same esteemed thinker said in his post a few weeks ago, all I ask you to is one thing: think.
Merci.
N
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I would define a system of 'mediocracy' as a system whereby equality is made to mean the same as 'average'. 'People must be the same, since that's what equality means.'
Absurd, really, but on the increase. Surely a meritocracy - in academia like in politics and port and arts - is the better route. Then we get the best.
Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, I would also concur with the 'esteemed thinker' (although I would dispute such a title; he's an élitist snob really). Thinking can't do society any harm. Though there are personal disadvantages.
P
Perhaps another point for you to consider is whether it is possible for someone who is aware and thinks 24/7 to have come to the conclusion that they'd rather not escape mediocrity, or rather that they do not feel trapped within it in the first place.
You have said about the simple dreams and the middle of the road aspirations and the stereotypical three bedroom house. I would say I have middle of the road aspirations. I wish to get married, have a family and own a house. And when I'm 78, like my Grandad now is, I want to be able to look back and feel that I have achieved something. But achievements for me will not be pieces of paper telling me I'm smart, or high positions in business etc. that dictate that I should be viewed with respect. My happiness will stem from how I have treated others, for it is through other people that our true achievements represented.
My interests in the intellectual aspects of society only make me achieve in the world by consequence. I do not strive to be successful. I strive to be happy. For me my happiness will be those middle of the road aspirations.
If you wish to criticise that by quoting "he who aims for nothing is sure to hit his target", you are more than welcome to. I'd like to think of myself as a thinker, and no amount of thinking has lead me thus far to form a desire to go far in a career or to be famous. Perhaps one could say that my approach is selfish in that by aiming to only be happy, I am only looking out for my own happiness and failing to make sacrifices for others. But when one learns that my happiness comes soully from the happiness of others, then one appreciates that my goals are not at all selfish. The only selfishness comes in deciding what I believe true happiness actually is and allowing that to override other people's ideas.
Sorry to do another "this is what Tom thinks" replies, but it's how I am. I suppose I need not apologise for being me, but I still respect the annoyance that may arise from my being so personal. As ever, I'm open to criticism and requests for elaboration.
Thanks for the interesting post Nick and very well done on the debate. It was a joy to chair.
I wpould suggest, Tom, that your position is arguably somewhat immoral. I know that's an extreme suggestion; it's provocative. But it could be argued that we have a responsibility (to humanity, to society, to God, as you will) to use our abilities to further the cause for x, x being a 'good thing'.
As I said, provocative.
P
As ever, I welcome your provocation Phil. As it is arguably immoral, I take that as a lead to initiate a debate upon the matter.
By consequence of the pursuit of happiness (and I am not referring to that film), is it not entirely possible that my actions benefit humanity, society or even God? For example, I choose to share rather than selfishly hoard things. My happiness comes from the happiness felt by those who I share with. Surely that is morally correct.
I can see a hole in what I've said so far in that were I totally dependent upon the happiness of others without restriction, I would support gluttony and other sins based purely upon the fact that it would make others happy. But here I draw your attention to my remark about my ideas of happiness perhaps selfishly overriding those of others. Good actions breed good happiness. Bad actions breed bad happiness. I suppose I shall have to define what I mean by that. Good happiness is happiness that is felt by the power of having done good or having been fortunate enough to receive the benefits of a good deed. Bad happiness is clearly the opposite. A person has done something bad to gain something and feels happiness at the expense of another. I do not endorse such happiness because it is short-term and, to agree with you, entirely immoral.
I note that you wisely use quotation marks on 'good thing'. One would like to think this was black and white, but it is up to our own judgement as to what is and is not a good thing. The cause of x is never universal.
I'd be interested to hear how you argue my position as immoral. Perhaps then it shall draw more out of me to clarify my position. It may even make me reconsider my position.
I often consider, a grim thought though it may be, what people will think of me after I die. Indeed, I would like to leave behind an impressive list of achievements and 'pieces of paper', but I can genuinely say that what I hold dearly to my heart is the thought that I will make people happy in some way.
I think that mediocracy is often sparked off by fear - fear that aspirations will not be reached and that the result of effort will be disappointment.
Ooooh! Two comments to refer to. This blogging is sio fruitful that I want to talk about eveything in a full post. But in reference to Tom:
Let us assume a religious perspective. You can substitute God with genetics/chance/humanity/Life Force etc. as you wish.
If God has given you an ability, you have a duty to use it. Morally, if I can serve God and my fellow men by my actions, it is wrong not to do so. It is selfish. And reprehensible.
This belief - as I hold it - comes directly from the Bible: the Parable of the Talents. But it needn't necessarily be so.
In response to francis: Ecclesiasticus, Chapter 44, vv. 9-15:
And some there be, which have no memorial; who are perished, as though they had never been; and are become as though they had never been born; and their children after them.
But these were merciful men, whose righteousness hath not been forgotten.
With their seed shall continually remain a good inheritance, and their children are within the covenant.
Their seed standeth fast, and their children for their sakes.
Their seed shall remain for ever, and their glory shall not be blotted out.
Their bodies are buried in peace; but their name liveth for evermore.
The people will tell of their wisdom, and the congregation will shew forth their praise.
You may recognise bits or all of it. It gives me some solace.
Apologies for all the religion; I usually try to stay more or less secular.
P
Well! I am touched. Such high level debate sparked off by my humble post - excellent! I shall have to remember to do this more.
N
You must! You're usually grea at babbling, sir! Why not ici aussi?
P
Not going to say too much in response to Phil YET, but I will say this...Should one have many talents, is it one's duty to pursue all those talents to the greater good of God? If so, then surely it can be impossible, given our earthly restrictions, to pursue all talents to their full. In this sense are we not failing in our duty? So perhaps it is in moderation that we must pursue all of our talents.
I feel that our education system is infected by mediocracy, and often actively discourages independent academic thinking and speculative intellectualism. I think that any free mind that has clearly reached the Third Sphere of Consciousness (see Francis' blog) is a free spirit and has escaped mediocrity / mediocracy. Even if you do nothing but think you have escaped, to speak metaphysically for a moment, in terms of the realms of the spirit. Contemplation, according to Aristotle (or was it Plato?) is the finest ideal.
Something I always have ti remind myself: be open-minded. The closed mind is dead.
Post a Comment