This is what I was trying to say:
“The art of using moderate abilities to advantage wins praise, and often acquires more reputation than real brilliancy.” de la Rochefoucauld
When I said this:
I’m not the best at a lot of things. Most of the time, the stuff people talk about makes my head spin and I get confused pretty easily. But I make due with what I’ve got. Being smart or talented or having the right equipment–none of that is all that rare. But to get up do a thousand miles or punched in the face or write a hundred pages or strike a deal or read a book or make a phone call without anyone telling you to? That’s almost unheard of.
I found it after and I like his better.
I love most of your stuff, especially your recommended readings, but it’s “make do”, not “make due”.
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/makedue.html
appreciate it
IMHO
Scenario 1.
The art of using moderate abilities to advantage wins praise, because for others:
you’ve just proven to them that someone much like themselves can attain such goals.
You’re just another human being, right?
At that point, you’re not only an achiever; you’re an inspirator.
Of course, a lot can be done through perseverance and dedication,
but only so few truly go those extra miles for their hopes and dreams(or even the smaller goals).
The world is so filled with quitters that everyone likes a reminder now and then
that a person can do something memorable.
Scenario 2.
If you attain your succes by real briliancy, only few will think that they
can succesfully copy/outdo you, and that leads to jealousy among the rest of the beholders. What good does it do them if you’ve attained your goal by a natural ability?
Nobody wants an “übermensch” for comparison with themselves.
Just my personal interpretation though.
PS, on a personal note to this websites editor: the website was lagging a bit so you might want to weed out any prior messages that may or may not have come through.
I understand what your original quote meant, and it is valid, but that’s not what de la Rochefoucauld meant. He is saying that, when the awards are handed out, a mediocre piece that did everything it could with what it had, is often placed before the truly brilliant piece.
What you are saying is what I say all the time to you: Hard work is far rarer and more valuable than just talent.
There is a subtle but real distinction in meaning between the two quotes.
I understand what your original quote meant, and it is valid, but that’s not what de la Rochefoucauld meant. He is saying that, when the awards are handed out, a mediocre piece that did everything it could with what it had, is often placed before the truly brilliant piece.
What you are saying is what I say all the time to you: Hard work is far rarer and more valuable than just talent.
There is a subtle but real distinction in meaning between the two quotes.
Do you agree with his?