Skip to main content

A Jack of All Trades is the Master of None or is He? - Caroline Tucker

We have all heard the saying “a jack of all trades is the master of none”. It seems to be a universal agreement that this statement is true. However, is it really true or do we all assume that it is true? Is there evidence to back up the saying? Probably. However, this is a blog post and not a research paper. With that said, the majority of this blog post is speculation, opinion, experience, and philosophical thinking. 

Socrates seems to agree with the saying by stating and, in his opinion, proving that “each person can perform only one occupation well, and by dabbling in many he will excel in none” (Plato, 92). While Socrates has several points about his belief and opinion, the times are just a TINY bit different now. Do I agree with the saying and with Socrates? I am not going to say out right but I am sure by the end of this blog post you will figure it out. 

As technology has changed over time, we, as a society, have gained more free time to do as we please. In the time of Socrates, there was not free time. The majority of their time was spent on their occupation as one does. It is reasonable to assume that in that time to be successful a person has to excel at one thing. To be good at several occupations would be more of a risk to that person’s livelihood. 

As I have just concluded, in Socrates’s time to be good at several occupations could be detrimental. What about in our time? Does the saying stand true and is Socrates correct? Well, who can say. I believe that someone who is good at everything cannot be great at one thing. However, if someone is great at one thing does not mean that that person is not good at other things. Life would be very boring if I was only good at one thing. I get burned out very quickly. So, there are a lot of things that I enjoy that I am sufficient in. However, I do not believe that I am great at anything. The people that are the greatest at something start at a young age and focus solely at that. 

So, I somehow typed my way from believing that the saying is wrong but also right. The only way that could happen would be when dealing with philosophy. I believe that the saying is true when applied to certain areas but is also wrong in different areas.

What do you think?

P.s. I commented on Isabelle’s and Abbie’s posts.

Comments

  1. ClaboSeptember 28, 2020 at 11:33 PM

    I see the struggle in your post. While a person may solely focus on one task and one task alone for the extent of his or her life and become very good at it, that may not bring joy or fulfillment into his or life. Also, what kind of cohesive community can function when its individuals are not diversified and informed in the knowledge of other trades and tasks.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Aristotle Might Not Like Me...Or Jesus//Haylee Lynd

      Aristotle says that the man who does not get angry at the things he should be angry at "is thought unlikely to defend himself; and to endure being insulted and put up with insult to one's friends is slavish" (Aristotle 41). While he states that passivity is preferred to excessive anger, he still gives great criticism to it.  In contrast to Aristotle, the man who Christians believe to be the most just is Jesus who states in Matthew 5:39-40, "...do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well." Essentially, arguing that one is not to respond in anger when insulted or hurt, to not defend one's self. Most individual's are unable to achieve this. Our natural instinct is to defend ourselves, especially in physical cases. However, Christians strive to be like Jesus in this way. I would also argue that it is a very admirable wa...
2 comments
Read more

Oedipus’ Children/Siblings—Lily Caswell

Ok, so Oedipus is a bit of a train wreck to say the least. I love the fact that even after Oedipus found out about his less-than-appealing relationship with his mother, he still tried to look after his children/siblings. After he gouged his eyes out, his children came to him at which point Oedipus talked about how that when they were old enough to marry, no one would want them due to them being products of incest. He said for the people not to condemn them based on what their father had done. Even after he knew what he had done and what his children were, he still wanted the best for them. I commented on Logan’s and Ian’s posts.
3 comments
Read more

Overanalyzing Everyone's Intentions Here-Rachael Gregson

 First off, I'd like to say this is going to be a two part blog post, because a lot of things happened in this reading assignment that demands to be discussed.  As with any war I've realized, it's tricky not to fall into the initial perspective I am given. I began this book skeptical of Hector because I was bias toward the movie Troy, which was told mostly through the eyes of Achilles, but neither were what I was expecting. It's actually funny that they both hold values completely opposite from one another. Hector represented everything related to city-state pride, honor, and humility whereas Achilles was everything wild, reckless, and unpredictable solitary. This isn't to say that Hector is all good and Achilles all bad. Both had instances where I rooted for the other more or less. I just thought it was interesting how their two personalities represented something that basically causes all wars: the clash between civilization and savagery.  Secondly, I'm not de...
2 comments
Read more