Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
You can understand the phrase in different ways – I made the following interpretation for myself – constant search and improvement of yourself is certainly great, but it can turn into a constant search, instead of enjoying what is there. Less fear of not achieving something, less nerves are spent on analyzing and setting goals. You can't embrace the vast and be the best at everything, that's a fact. Constant attitudes to success often lead to completely opposite results, and inevitable and painless failures eventually lead to more sad results.
You can answer this question using economic theory.
Many neoclassical models assume that agents (e.g., people) have sufficient resources to make the best possible choice (i.e., find the “best”one). For example, a neoclassical boss will find the perfect employee; a neoclassical wife will find the perfect husband; and a neoclassical couple will find the perfect hotel in St. Petersburg to spend the May Day weekend.
But if the search is a costly procedure (as in real life), sometimes it is more profitable to stop at the nearest satisfactory option (good). Continuing to search for the best leads to a waste of resources, and as a result, the agent is left with nothing at all. Therefore, the best is the enemy of the good.