/lit/ - Literature

>>12000072
I appreciate your responses, always giving me more to think about.
>you know who is who because of who is *excellent* and who is *skilled.*
And if some people are genetically predisposed to being excellent, or there are families that produce extremely skilled people at certain things... and others find themselves lacking in excellence or skill. How would you deal with that situation? What of any resentment they have toward the excellent and skilled, who surely could end up becoming more wealthy due to their skill, as compared to those who are lacking? You don't want to resort to violence - but the weak may want to resort to violence against you.
>once you have worked out your animus and antipathy to the crowd, you can then go off into the sunset however you see fit. politics is not the way.
once you have worked that out, why could you not go whatever way you choose, even politics? that would be the path of the philosopher-king, no?
>the Great Learning is Great because everybody is capable of it, each in their own way.
When I initially read this I thought it sounded patronizing, because I was reminded of how parents might tell a child that they were "special in their own way" whenever they had an obvious disability or handicap. I agree with what you said though.
>>12000109
>the *real* question to be asked is whether or not the sage (or philosopher-king) *ought to be a political figure.*
Would a sage want to be? The call to being a hermit is alluring, enticing, safe, and satisfying. Reminds me of this pic and his analysis on why some choose one or the other.