In answer to that which thou saidst, that I spake too high of prayer, I grant well that I spake more than I myself can or may do. Nevertheless I spake it for this intent that thou shouldst know how we ought to pray; and when we cannot do so, that we should acknowledge our weakness with all humility and God’s mercy. Our Lord Himself hath commanded us thus: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul and with all thy might. It is impossible for any man living to fulfil this bidding so fully as it is said. Yet our Lord hath bidden us so, to the intent, as St Bernard saith, that thereby we should know our feebleness, and then humbly cry for mercy, and we shall have it. Nevertheless I shall instruct thee in this point what to do as well as I can. (John Climacus)

I have been re-reading some Aristotle. Last evening a commentator noted that Aristotle is not entirely clear when (or if) an error in perception, leading to an error in behavior, indicates negligence on the part of an agent.

The commentator suggests that the philosopher implies not every error is avoidable. There is no negligence if the error is "not unreasonable." Or when the agent's perception and behavior is reasonable given context, a mistaken outcome is not evidence of failing to give due care.

I have a reasonable relationship with God. My love of God is not unreasonable. But the Aristotelian mean is not always the most excellent way. I am negligent in failing to love with all my heart, all my soul, and all my might.