Nothing in excess
Advice to the emperor.
One day Qin Shihuang was wondering why people didn't live as long as they used to. His chief minister, Qi Bo, should've said, "Well, dude, if you keep massacring whole families, it's no wonder no one's living as long. This is the age of Butchery, Buggery, Burning and Burial. And that's just a fun afternoon out for you. No one else enjoys it. So long as people live in absolute terror of you, they're going to be dropping like flies."
But Qi Bo, knowing that the emperor was never in a mood to be gainsaid, waffled on blandly about moderation, regularity, and balance, perhaps hoping that Qin Shihuang would moderate his human rights abuses; be regular in them; and let everyone share in them. Can you imagine the disgrace for prominent families of the realm if the emperor wasn't even bothering to execute any of them?
Should the emperor have followed Qi Bo's actual advice? That was his choice. Besides, Qi Bo was just making a few observations. He wasn't attempting to formulate the policy of the imperial government.
Actually, I'd agree with Qi Bo's suggestion about moderation. μηδὲν ἄγαν, as the Greeks said. Nothing in excess. Of course, where are the boundaries in either direction – gross excess on the one hand; plasureless asceticism on the other? If we indulge in gross excess, are we always able to resist its allure? If you're addicted to something, you can't help yourself. Alcoholics merely fight their addiction. But if you overindulge in spite of yourself, perhaps your actions could be judged as an ethical lapse. Alcoholics can't help it; you can. As for the other extreme, that seems to be mistaken for virtuousness and a means of shuffling off these earthly coils. It is, I think, a kind of insanity, but because underindulgence is viewed more favourably than overindulgence, it's less likely to be condemned.
Meanwhile, most people remain somewhere in between apart from moments of madness.
One day Qin Shihuang was wondering why people didn't live as long as they used to. His chief minister, Qi Bo, should've said, "Well, dude, if you keep massacring whole families, it's no wonder no one's living as long. This is the age of Butchery, Buggery, Burning and Burial. And that's just a fun afternoon out for you. No one else enjoys it. So long as people live in absolute terror of you, they're going to be dropping like flies."
But Qi Bo, knowing that the emperor was never in a mood to be gainsaid, waffled on blandly about moderation, regularity, and balance, perhaps hoping that Qin Shihuang would moderate his human rights abuses; be regular in them; and let everyone share in them. Can you imagine the disgrace for prominent families of the realm if the emperor wasn't even bothering to execute any of them?
Should the emperor have followed Qi Bo's actual advice? That was his choice. Besides, Qi Bo was just making a few observations. He wasn't attempting to formulate the policy of the imperial government.
Actually, I'd agree with Qi Bo's suggestion about moderation. μηδὲν ἄγαν, as the Greeks said. Nothing in excess. Of course, where are the boundaries in either direction – gross excess on the one hand; plasureless asceticism on the other? If we indulge in gross excess, are we always able to resist its allure? If you're addicted to something, you can't help yourself. Alcoholics merely fight their addiction. But if you overindulge in spite of yourself, perhaps your actions could be judged as an ethical lapse. Alcoholics can't help it; you can. As for the other extreme, that seems to be mistaken for virtuousness and a means of shuffling off these earthly coils. It is, I think, a kind of insanity, but because underindulgence is viewed more favourably than overindulgence, it's less likely to be condemned.
Meanwhile, most people remain somewhere in between apart from moments of madness.
Comments