Everything in moderation seems like a good idea. Aristotle have the Aristotelian mean, Buddha preaches the "middle way" between the life of an ascetic and the luxury life of a prince.
Often when things are not going right, the conclusion is that we have err towards excess or not enough of some quality and that we should have some but not too much of whatever that was under consideration.
However, that is hindsight.
Going forward, how do we know we have achieved moderation?
Faced with a choice of 4, 8, or 12 oz steak on the menu, the 8 oz steak seems the right choice. What if the choice is 8, 12, or 16 oz?
What if we recall that the doctor recommended red meat only occasionally? Maybe even the 4 oz steak is too much?
Seems to me that to get to moderation, we need to define what the upper and lower limits of consideration is. How do we do that?
Maybe we should see what everybody else is doing and use that to establish the range from which we can establish moderation. Wisdom in crowds. If the whole crowd is going the wrong way, at lease we are only half wrong!
But what if the whole crowd is going over the cliff like lemmings? Halfway over the cliff is just as bad as a quarter or three quarters over the cliff.
How about going with what is available? As in the Buddha example, the ascetic is starving himself to avoid all material goods while the prince is at the extreme point of riches. Surely that defines the range?
With such a wide range, what is considered the middle way? Skipping a meal here and there? Well fed and enjoying the pleasures of food but not other pleasures?
Are there practical guides towards achieving moderation in what we do?
How does this advice work with the excellence argument, that we should strive to be the best in what we do? That mediocrity is to be avoided?
Should we ignore both moderation and excellence and just do what we want?
Should we use these to our advantage to justify whatever it is we are doing?
Wittgenstien-thinks our ideals are illusionary not lofty....moderation or mediocrity wouldn't help if that's so. If they are the later (lofty)? A person couldn't help acheive an ideal; this seems strange especially when considering wisdom of crowds! Or maybe not; democracy is all about the crowd and its wisdom which has people's social locations more pre-determined. As if Obama was meant to be! Hows that for mediocrity...(But he sees himself as a people's President).
ReplyDeleteBut on the existential side I think moderation comes from the Buddhists view that every thing is perfect -as it is- Buddha examined extremes and knew the laws of cause and effect. If I do x I get Y. Or because of this; that. But this is an insufficient view of cause and effect. Its simply not that simple. Better to leave some uncertainty and to work with what one can see. And from this one learns or develops. Extremes aren't sustainable; not to mention narrow minded! So its preferable to think and act moderately, although not always possible.
For something like courage, we assume more is good and not enough is cowardice and bad. To Aristotle, courage is the mean between cowardice and rashness. What is moderation to Aristotle is called temperance in the Bible and called a fruit of the Spirit. The NIV (a modern Bible) has called temperance self-control now. The Scripture is Galatians 5:22 and 23. Gluttony is traditionally one of the 7 deadly sins but is not commonly considered as bad as other such sins.
ReplyDeleteJustice is a matter of cultural context, immediate environment, and internal experience. By sex, perhaps, women have an ethic of caring and men an ethic of justice. There may also be forms of justice according to body build: endomorph, mesomorph, and ectomorph. The immediate context: 4, 8, 12; or 8, 12, 16; would be about how we anchor justice. Trading patterns according to consummatory need, merit, or power also influence our immediate views on justice. Emergence of justice norms can be studied here. All these studies have been done.
It is commonly bandied about that if you cannot control yourself, then someone will control you on behalf of yourself. I am just coming to terms with the busybody mentality, meddling, and perhaps paternalism. Leading by example (rarely done) or leading by control (rarely appreciated).
Aristotle has a double standard for charity: for rich people the virtue is magnanimity and for poor people the virtue is frugality. Can justice be different for different people and not equal for all? CL
Dan, testing out chrome browser as posting mechanism.
ReplyDeleteAs for moderation. Rely on experience of self or others. Are the resulting outcomes unsatisfactory?
Better to be temperate when engaging in any work. Know thy self, and you can avoid needing to much help....
ReplyDeleteUnderstanding the interconnectivity of life helps people support each other. If I stop justifying my experiences I can better see yours. Women or men find this difficult, especially when a person isn't satisfied that their own needs are being met.
True justice is incredible difficult to ascertain. And it requires care and knowledge--- or what I like to think of as a desire for the truth. Like the scientists of Aristotle's day...Natural Scientists.
VTS
I am becoming more and more suspicious that the "everything in moderation" phrase is like "common sense". It is something used in hindsight to simplify compromises that are fraught with possible outcomes on both possibility of success and failure.
ReplyDeleteThere is cause and effect but there is also probability. We can influence the probability of an outcome but never the certainty of the outcome itself.
Experience is definitely the best thing to rely on if we can be sure specific past experiences are applicable to what we are about to do. This include past experiences that may have been blessed by luck. Contrary to Murphy's law that claims if things can go wrong, it will; it may not go wrong the on the first try.
Did Socrates preach of moderation as the key to success? I don't know if he did, or not. Was Socrates truly Humble? Yes and No? Could it be so?
ReplyDeleteVTS