by 
Jimmyp
ANSWERS: 11
-
http://homepage.mac.com/mseffie/handouts/mean.html Oh yes! I've always believed that any lack or excess isn't good for you and the people around you.
-
Yes, I have always thought there must be balance in life. Its a good idea, but I think that as humans we tend to fluctuate back and forwards over things as we grow.
-
It's a matter of principle+definition rather than belief. Do you believe in virtue? Do you believe in objective standards for virtue? do you believe in absolute good? are questions more specific to every-day acceptance of the golden mean. If I accept Aristotle's principles, and his way of conducting inquiry, I do accept his concept of virtue+ human action/good/ethics. Actually, the balance of these virtues has to do with prudence, that highest of virtues (to the ancient Greek), and I have found that prudence is always a good thing with which to judge action! ~_^
-
Difficult. I can't help thinking of the line from revelations: Thou art neither hot nor cold and I will spit thee out of my mouth. I certainly think there is a peaceful, compassionate, reserved, disciplined 'sinless' lifestyle to aim for, but it draws more of a triangle. I mean it may be as far away from one set of extremes than the other, but I don't think its achieved by simply drawing a line between the two and making do with the central compromise. There's more achievement and aspiration to it than that, so 'mean' (average) is a misnomer.
-
Thank you for the interesting question. It would seem that the 'golden mean' is instrumental in the positive traits of our society, the expression of beauty as: symmetry, proportion, and harmony. However, I also believe that extremes have a positive purpose in the development of society as well. Where following the practice of "nothing in excess" you have to avoid the trap of following it to excess. There are times when excess is a survival trait. We have to ask ourselves if there would even be any progress without some excess. Otherwise, we would all be sheeple.
-
"However, I also believe that extremes have a positive purpose in the development of society as well. Where following the practice of "nothing in excess" you have to avoid the trap of following it to excess." Yarnlady, I don't think that makes sense! What is prudent, or moderate, is what is fitting for any specific situation. to say that excess or deficiency can be good in a situation that calls for just-right is illogical. Maybe you mean that sometimes it is better to exceed our intention rather than the the requirements of the situation? but even then, don't you think full knowledge of the situation is better?
-
Deficiency is the opposite of excess, and it is in avoidance of these that one achieves the golden mean. By knowledge I mean rather what Aristotle would call practical wisdom, that is the ability to judge a situation wisely and deliberate truly.
-
The golden mean makes sense for a definition of virtue. remember Aristotle wasn't just talking about moral virtue but rather the whole person. For Aristotle all virtues have vices which are either a deficiency or an excess. This makes a lot of sense logically. Tomaso
-
Yes. I don't always follow it, but yes.
-
yes and it really boils down to you can't have one without the other
-
Oh yes..as a general rule it is a wise one indeed. Many philosophers, even Confucius, advocated "Everything in moderation, nothing to excess". I have found that it applies in just about everything, e.g. eating, drinking, exercise, spending money, relationships, etc. [although Oscar Wilde apparently said "Everything in moderation, including moderation." ;)] This is what the author Rafael Sabatini had to say about Prohibition: "Being a temperate man, it logically follows that I abhor the very idea of prohibition. In my eyes a teetotaller is quite as intemperate as a drunkard, and he is without a drunkard's sense of decency. For whereas most drunkards are ashamed of their intemperance, most teetotallers glory in theirs, make a boast of it, and ram it down the throats (literally, in the form of ginger ale and such chemical abominations) of their guests and other victims. A drunkard is usually content to be drunk himself. He does not demand that the whole world shall be drunk with him. A teetotallers insists—and when possible enforces this insistence—that everybody else shall abstain as well."
RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC