Introduction

The other day I was scrolling through social media. For whatever reason the algorithm curated a powerful series of short form videos that made me feel a spectrum of emotions. One was thought-provoking, another was funny and a bit absurd, another was sad focusing on current world events, then a sobering one…

Each was captivating in its own way, and I watched them all the way through. However, after I decided to get back to work, I couldn't help but notice the depth of emotions I had just experienced — and at such a fast pace. What stood out to me more than anything was the almost complete lack of emotional residue, call to action, or any form of after effect.

It was as though I had become accustomed to feeling emotions so deeply so quickly? Perhaps I had become desensitised? In the moment, however, it all felt so real and some motivated me to do something after (e.g., read about a topic, learn a new hobby, etc.). Yet, once all was said and done, I came away unchanged, with no further action taken or to be taken.

It was a big wake up call, I think. Not least because of the time wasted on social media by my generation — which many of us are already painfully aware of. But that the problems go much deeper than we, or at least I, had originally imagined.

It occurred to me then that Aristotle wrote about catharsis and the role it plays in storytelling and drama. I wondered whether that idea might apply here, so I did some research.

Catharsis: The Term

You may skip this section if the etymology or how the term came to be does not interest you; however, you may find this section helpful and quite revealing. At least I did.

As far as my research goes, Aristotle wrote about catharsis [κάθαρσις] in two treatises, in Politics and Poetics. Before that, the term was primarily used for physical and medical rather than mental purposes. Used in medicine — by Aristotle as well in other writings — the term has its roots in the word kathairein [κᾰθαίρειν, 'to purify'] and katharos [κᾰθᾰρός, 'pure']. Therefore, it was used in its literal sense for medical purposes or to refer to purification rituals in mythology and in practice.

Interestingly, Burkert notes, ‘… It carries more weight that the root kathar, to clean/to purify, has no Indo-European etymology but ties in with a Semitic root in the sphere of purification: qatar, to fumigate.’[1] Wikipedia correctly notes the cognate term in Arabic قَطَّرَ [qaṭṭara, to distill], though they misspell the romanisation.[2]

The theme of purification, or catharsis, becomes important as philosophers and scholars throughout the ages employ the term in different ways. Platonism, Neoplatonism, Aristotelianism, and other traditions all understand catharsis as serving different purposes. Some of these interpretations will be explored in this essay, others fall beyond its scope.

Socrates and Plato on Catharsis

Influencers and short form videos were not present during the time of the Greeks. So, I take the liberty of grouping them with poets, musicians, and artists as entertainment for the sake of argument. Naturally, however, there are differences which we will discuss further on.

To better understand Aristotle, one must begin with his teacher(s). In Book X of The Republic, Plato presents a three part dialogue between Socrates and Glaucon, Plato’s older brother, in which they discuss the ‘Theory of Art’ and mimesis (imitation).[3]

Part I: Socrates lays out his reasoning and conviction for the exclusion of ‘dramatic representation’ in his ideal state (utopia). He argues that the productions of a painter and a poet are the imitations of a life which is itself only secondary reality. He uses the example of three sorts of beds.*

The first sort exists in nature and is created by god as the ‘Ideal’ bed — representing ‘bed-ness’ itself — an uncorrupted ideal form of what a bed is supposed to be. The second sort is manufactured by the carpenter and constitutes a particular or version of a bed. The third sort is the painter's. He is not a creator, and his work cannot be considered a bed. It is a representation of both; therefore, his work ‘stands at third remove from reality’ and ‘the throne of truth’.

This distinction is important for, as Socrates points out, the artist has no knowledge of what they imitate. He asks a long-dead Homer:†

Friend Homer, if you are only in the second remove from truth in what you say of virtue, and not in the third—not an image maker or imitator… tell us what State was ever better governed by your help?… Italy and Sicily boast of Charondas, and there is Solon who is renowned among us; but what city has anything to say about you?

Socrates also says something that really made me think, and I will likely take up in another part of this essay series:

Now do you suppose that if a person were able to make the original as well as the image, he would seriously devote himself to the image-making branch? Would he allow imitation to be the ruling principle of his life, as if he had nothing higher in him?

Part II: Much shorter, this section foregrounds catharsis and Aristotle’s rebuttal. Socrates argues that the ‘mimic’ appeals to the less rational part of our nature. Grief and other emotions, in Socrates’ view, ought to be governed rationally, wherever reason can gain purchase on it. We must seek the help we need, and learn to move forward. Poets, by contrast, make us give into grief and dwell on it — ‘like children who have had a fall, keeping hold of the part struck and wasting time in setting up a howl’.

Part III: Part III can be summarised by the opening line by Socrates:

But we have not yet brought forward the heaviest count in our accusation:—the power which poetry has of harming even the good‡ (and there are very few who are not harmed), is surely an awful thing?

He outlines how primitive desires, emotions and jokes we would be ashamed to display in public are brought forward and made ‘acceptable’ by virtue of being on a stage. For these and other reasons summarised, Socrates and Glaucon agree that poetry and art should not form part of a properly run state.

Finally, one might wonder where Plato fits into all of this. Socrates left no writings of his own, and where Socrates ends and Plato begins has long been debated. For our purposes, it is enough to treat the Socrates of The Republic as the vehicle through which Plato presents these arguments.

Aristotle on Catharsis

Aristotle, it would seem, had a rather different view of art and its purpose in our lives. Whereas Socrates and Plato worry that art excites emotions which ought to remain under the control of reason and that it guides the audience away from truth, Aristotle allows for the possibility that such emotions may serve a useful purpose when properly aroused and may, in fact, be a vehicle for learning. He discusses these ideas in two treatises: Politics and Poetics.

His treatment of this idea in Politics is brief. He writes:

… we say that music should not be applied to one purpose only, but many; both for instruction and purifying the soul (now I use the word purifying at present without any explanation, but shall speak more at large of it in my Poetics); and, in the third place, as an agreeable manner of spending the time and a relaxation from the uneasiness of the mind… all music which has the power of purifying the soul affords a harmless pleasure to man…[4]

Politics is a response to the ideal state (utopia) discussed in various dialogues by Socrates and Plato in The Republic. Art was never the main subject, therefore, but as it is discussed, it is brought up here too, albeit briefly. I present the excerpt then only because this is the first time the term kátharsis [κάθαρσις] appears in Aristotle’s writing, and is worth highlighting. Ellis translates it as ‘purifying the soul’, which is not inappropriate as discussed in the etymology section.

A full analysis of Poetics would be difficult to do without making an already lengthy essay considerably longer. So, I will highlight the important parts for our purposes.

Catharsis is mentioned in Poetics Chapters VI and XIV, with nothing noteworthy other than to connect catharsis with the arousal of pity and fear, and to argue that these emotions are best produced by the structure of the tragedy itself.[5]

Where things begin to get interesting is in Chapter IV, where Aristotle begins to take up art. He notes two origins of poetry: imitation is in human nature from childhood, and that we take delight in it. The point on delight, I think, deserves the most attention.

Aristotle writes that though the thing being imitated may be painful for us to see — such as unpleasant creatures or death — learning something is ‘the greatest of pleasures not only to the philosopher but also to the rest of mankind, however small their capacity for it.’ The pleasure is in recognising an imitation and making the connection to real-life, ‘that the man there is so-and-so’. Where one does not know the thing being imitated, he continues, one’s pleasure is derived instead from the execution of the work itself, such as its colouring or craftsmanship.

Chapter IX is another chapter worth noting, as it directly addresses the argument by Socrates in Part I of Book X in The Republic, that poetry guides the audience away from universal truth. That is, by virtue of being at third remove, poetry, then, is undesirable.

Aristotle makes the distinction between history and poetry by saying that their difference is not simply that one uses prose and the other verse. History, he says, is a ‘singular statement’: it is concerned with a particular time, place, and events that happened. Poetry, by contrast, is a ‘universal statement’: concerned with the things that might happen. It may draw upon history, but more importantly it asks what a certain kind of person would probably or necessarily say or do in a given situation. In this sense, poetry attempts to move beyond the particular event and say something more general about human nature. For this reason, Aristotle considers poetry to be more philosophic and of greater import than history.

The remainder of Poetics is concerned largely with what constitutes good art and how it ought to be constructed. Those are questions I will leave for another essay.

Conclusion(s)

I began this essay by reflecting on short form content and its after effects, or lack thereof, on the individual. That one experiences a depth of emotions while watching, but after escaping the addictive algorithm, one is left feeling as though nothing happened.

A passing thought I had about the concept of ‘catharsis’ became a week and a half of researching and reading Ancient Greek philosophy. Having now done so, I think the question is more complex than whether social media simply desensitises its users. Perhaps it's whether anyone should be exposed to so much tragedy, comedy, motivation, and inspiration within less than a minute.

As to who has the better argument, that is a question for another time. In Part II, I want to return to Plato’s more troubling charge: that imitation does not merely act upon our emotions, but may also stand between us and the truth, and what that means for the founder who sits ‘at third remove’.

References

1. Burkert W, Pinder ME, Burkert W. The orientalizing revolution: Near Eastern influence on Greek culture in the early archaic age. 3. print. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press; 1997. 225 p. (Revealing antiquity; no. 5).

2. Catharsis. In: Wikipedia [Internet]. 2026 [cited 2026 Aug 20]. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catharsis&oldid=1364249140

3. Plato. The Republic [Internet]. Project Gutenberg; 2021 [cited 2026 Aug 20]. Available from: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/150

4. Aristotle. Politics: A Treatise on Government [Internet]. Project Gutenberg; 2013 [cited 2026 Aug 20]. Available from: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/6762

5. Aristotle. Aristotle on the Art of Poetry [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2026 Aug 20]. Available from: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/6763

In a world of MVPs and growth hacks, we often speak of speed, of product-market fit, of scale. But of quality? For some reason it gets left behind when the race begins. Yet, it’s the thing customers remember long after they’ve forgotten what you were selling.

What is Quality, Really?

qual·i·ty (/ˈkwälədē/) noun

1. the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something.

The definition of quality in the dictionary fails to adequately describe what it means in the world of entrepreneurship, in my opinion. Quality is a feeling. It is the sense that you have not been cheated, that what you hold in your hands (or experience through a screen) was built with care and a desire to serve you well. Further, it is not like anything else, it is different.

An experience that highlighted this for me recently was using Canva. I have been using it a lot to produce designs and graphics for an upcoming conference. I always get surprised with new abilities and features that I did not know I needed until I did, such as filling letters with an image. It’s precognitive, it knows what you want to do before you do it.

There is this quote I like of a music critic describing Fredric Chopin’s music as the following:

"It is as if one knows instinctively what comes next, yet without his writing it, one would never have realised it.”

And I could not think of a better way to describe his genius.[1] Your software, your product, your service needs to know what your customer wants before they do.

Can Quality Be Measured?

Honestly, I am not sure. Quality is about craftsmanship, constant experimentation, and lots of restarting. The ability to create is inborn, but flowers only with years of the most uncompromising hard work—which many of us, including myself, are still learning how to embrace fully.

When it comes to metrics, there are plenty that help businesses track satisfaction: Net Promoter Score, customer retention, churn, lifetime value. All of them have their place, but metrics don’t always tell you the whole story: whether someone truly loved your product. They don’t tell you if someone felt proud to recommend you, or if they’d be sad to lose you.

A better metric might be Michele Ferrero’s, the founder of the Ferrero Group (Nutella, Ferrero Rocher, Kinder). Ferrero famously avoided traditional advertising and marketing, especially in the early years. He believed that the product’s quality should speak for itself, and that word of mouth was the true test of merit.

This is an unconventional path, I don’t know if I’m brave enough to follow it yet. But it speaks to a deeper principle: that quality is not just what is built, but how it endures, how it spreads in whispers, in recommendations, in reputations.

Things to Take Away

Offer a No-Questions-Asked Refund or Other Guarantees

This is a suggestion from Alex Hormozi’s $100M Offers: How To Make Offers So Good People Feel Stupid Saying No.[2] What guarantees me your product will work? Make people feel safe buying from you. Safety builds trust. Trust builds loyalty.

Start a “Founder Review”

Every week, connect with 1–2 real customers to ask about their experience. Read the support emails, try the onboarding yourself, and feel the edges of your product.

Map a Single Customer Journey in Full

Ferrero’s Mrs. Valeria, the imaginary customer he built everything for. Not a real person, but an idea. What do they want? Where do they feel unsure? Where do they hesitate? What would make them feel understood?[3]

Write One Honest Line

In an increasingly corporate world, plant one sentence that sounds like you mean it. Strip away the polish and speak directly to your customer.

Remember that quality in a startup is paramount, because it forms the bedrock upon which an establishment is built and is the metric by which your customers will judge you.

Notes

1. I forget where I read this critique. I searched everywhere and came up without luck. If you know the source, feel free to let me know.

2. This is a genuinely good book and I highly recommend it to anyone looking to understand how to build better offers that will convert.

3. I recently underwent this exercise for our product, and what a delight it was. I mapped out every little detail about my avatar, from their psychology, environment, wants, desires, insecurities, to the feeling of success, and worked backwards to then develop the features and products we have.

“A pilot does not deviate from the flight path every time the wind shifts.”

At the end of the week, as one does, I found myself reflecting. What did I accomplish? What went well? Am I happy with how things played out?

On the whole, yes. If I had to take an average score for the week, I’d say I finished what needed to be done. However, I also reflected on the amount of unexpected items that came up and fluctuating emotions day-to-day.

Like many entrepreneurs, there are days when I wake up absolutely stressed out. There are mornings when the workload feels insurmountable, when progress feels slow, and I start to question if we’re headed off a cliff.

I am a fan of the concept that two things can be true at the same time, and that not everything is mutually exclusive. Truth is, you can be stressed and not change what you are/about to be doing.

To put in an analogy that helped me symbolize it: on any flight, there will be turbulence. Winds will shift. But a pilot does not deviate from the flight path every time the wind shifts[1]. If they did, no flight would ever reach its destination.

In a startup, like a long flight, you will face turbulence. Stress and anxiety are common emotions on some days and I find anxiety urging me to rewrite the plan. There is this temptation I often have to think that because something I had not accounted for came up, that my schedule for the week was wrong or that I did not plan well enough.

You simply cannot account for everything. It is important, then, to not allow day-to-day fluctuations to create doubt in your plan. Stay on course unless there’s a genuine signal to divert. Do not let distractions derail you.

So, how do you keep your hands steady on the controls when the winds shift? For me, it comes down to a few key practices. First, remember with what information did I make my plan for the week. Second, is this new information today relevant to or change my initial assumptions? Finally, is this information or task a priority today? If it fails any of the three, I acknowledge it, but I don't let it derail my focus or deviate from the established course.

Jeff Bezos once put it nicely when talking about Amazon’s stock price, which one would think would be of paramount focus. He said: “The stock is not the company. And I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about the stock price.”

Even when the stock dipped, Bezos focused on building value, not on reacting emotionally to external noise. In aviation, you should adjust your flight plan when ATC tells you to divert due to storms, or when critical instruments signal danger. In business, it’s when data, not doubt, tells you to pivot.

So, the next time you feel those winds shift and the plane starts to rattle, remember: it’s part of the journey. Keep your eyes on the destination, trust your plan, and let the genuine signals guide your path forward.

Notes

1. Shoutout to my cousin Jad for helping me find the right terminology 👏🏻

[At our company,] we adopted this concept we call internally the Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 startup…

I originally came across the concept of micro startups and “levels” doom scrolling one day. The idea, as the video stated, is to imagine where you wanted to be in five years and work backwards and build the startups that would get you there. Each level contains a goal that aims higher than the previous one and, as a result, also requires a higher skill set level. For the life of me, however, I cannot find the original video nor remember it enough to quote it properly. (If you do, please send it my way!)

Since then, we adopted and amended this concept we call internally the Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 startup. Theoretically, you can continue to go higher in levels; however, for our purposes and current vision, we have identified three levels.

Level 1: Build Something That Works

This is where most great companies begin—not with a bold mission statement, but with a clear pain point.

In Level 1, identify a niche you understand deeply. You know the problem. You’ve lived it. You can articulate it better than your customer can. And because of that, you can build something that serves a real, immediate need. The unknowns at this stage are limited to the basics of running a successful startup and reduce the heavy burden of marketing research, stakeholder consultations, product designs, and more.

The goal here is to get to $1M in yearly recurring revenue (YRR). Not because that number is magical, but because it gives you proof that the product works, people want it, and you’re capable of solving problems in the real world. Once you hit that mark, you’re ready to graduate to Level 2.

Level 2: Build Infrastructure, Not Just Products

Ideally, using the skills gained in Level 1, you expand your goal to a more meso level problem in your niche or area.

For example, if you built a task manager for founders with ADHD in Level 1, you would perhaps look to develop an internal OS for neurodivergent teams to optimize how they communicate, build, and collaborate in Level 2.

The challenge here isn’t just “does this work?”, it’s “how do I make this work at scale, for teams, systems, or institutions?” The goal here is to reach $5M in YRR in order to graduate to Level 3.

Level 3: Build the World You Want to Live In

The fun stage. Why founders do it. This is where you go all out on the crazy ideas that change the world. Here you may look to tackle system level or global problems reimagining

• security,
• the education system,
• the workplace,
• or something no one’s dared attempt yet.

There is no set criteria to graduate for this level, you may choose to remain here until the end.

I find this concept really powerful and helpful for any founder and entrepreneur. The hardest part of the journey is saying “No” to attractive news ideas and remaining focused. Now, at Level 1, whenever we’re on call or working together and come up with a creative new idea it gets placed in the appropriate level archive to be revisited at a later date. Not deleted, just shelved until it’s appropriate.

All that said, this is by no means a law that must be followed, nor a successful blueprint I am sharing. Only a concept we found helpful internally to keep us on track. You may choose to adapt this level system to your company.

Furthermore, the graduation criteria may look different for you and your startup. For us, our goal is to build a safety net that can take care of life’s essentials such that we can then tackle Level 3 problems worry-free of family and life needs. That’s our real graduation criteria.

The neat thing is that this could be applied to the same startup and iterations of where you want to build towards—Apple I, Apple II, Apple III, Lisa, Macintosh, until present. The idea is that each version is a step closer to the thing you're really trying to build. And sometimes, knowing which version you're building is the most powerful clarity you can have.