Moderation and the "golden mean"

The Seeker · Dec 23, 2005

Often "extremist" is used as an insult, a way of suggesting that a person's beliefs are invalid because they are "extreme" (where extreme is defined by difference between that persons beliefs and an arbitrary "centre", which the speaker always seems to occupy, by some bizarre coincidence). However, is there any inherent value in being moderate? It is widely acknowledged moderation is the best way in certain areas (diet, alcohol, etc.), but does that necessarily mean that the "middle road" is always the best one?

Nobody would ever say "These extremist anti-murder people need to learn that what we need is a balance between the number of people being murdered and the number of people being left to live their lives in peace"

Nobody would ever say "Smack is something that should be taken in moderation, instead of going for the extremes of overdosing or not taking it at all"

What inherent value is there, if any, to moderation?

FreezBee · Dec 23, 2005

The Seeker said:
Often "extremist" is used as an insult, a way of suggesting that a person's beliefs are invalid because they are "extreme" (where extreme is defined by difference between that persons beliefs and an arbitrary "centre", which the speaker always seems to occupy, by some bizarre coincidence). However, is there any inherent value in being moderate? It is widely acknowledged moderation is the best way in certain areas (diet, alcohol, etc.), but does that necessarily mean that the "middle road" is always the best one?

Nobody would ever say "These extremist anti-murder people need to learn that what we need is a balance between the number of people being murdered and the number of people being left to live their lives in peace"

Nobody would ever say "Smack is something that should be taken in moderation, instead of going for the extremes of overdosing or not taking it at all"

What inherent value is there, if any, to moderation?

The word "moderation" can be understood in various ways.

Since murder is a crime, the moderation would concern the punishment. Should a murderer be given the death penalty or a more moderate penalty?

As for smack, drugs, alcoholic beverages, and so on - the moderation would go, not on that yuo should use all of them somewhat, but whether you should use any of them in moderate measure. If they are really health-threatening, "moderation" might mean "not at all".

Have a nice Christmas!

- FreezBee

The Seeker · Dec 23, 2005

FreezBee said:
The word "moderation" can be understood in various ways.

Which was, to an extent, my point

Since murder is a crime, the moderation would concern the punishment.

Doesn't that presuppose that the law is always correct? Not that I'm arguing that it isn't on murder

As for smack, drugs, alcoholic beverages, and so on - the moderation would go, not on that yuo should use all of them somewhat, but whether you should use any of them in moderate measure. If they are really health-threatening, "moderation" might mean "not at all".

But "not at all" is an extreme, not moderation.

Have a nice Christmas!

You too

xAtheistx · Dec 23, 2005

The Seeker said:
Often "extremist" is used as an insult, a way of suggesting that a person's beliefs are invalid because they are "extreme"

Is it? I never considered it derogatorily. I'm an extremist to the extreme.
The only time I could be considered "moderate" is when I really haven't made up my mind on which extreme to pursue (or don't care on the topic).

I'm not really passionate that there should be middle ground about anything.

For example, I'm fiercely defendant of my beliefs on religion. I'm passionate about the death penalty. And I'm kind of in the middle on murder, atm--I'm pretty wishy washy on whether it's good or bad. But that's a discussion for another time.

I suppose I'm moderate in my actions (like dieting... and as far as legality is concerned too ) , but extremist in my beliefs.
Does that make me tenacious, or hypocritical?
(Unless you want to take it to the next level, saying that I BELIEVE I should be within this weight range, and I BELIEVE I should follow certain laws, but not others [e.g. Jaywalking... which I did right in front of a cop once, and he didn't do a thing about it])

I think extreme is the way to go--at least then you believe in something. Of course, I believe closer to my belief is closer to correct (by definition of belief), duh. But I applaud zealots and cult activists for believing in something and going after it. Because... Christianity was considered a cult back in Roman times.
Can you imagine what Christianity would be like today if people only thought it was an "OK" idea? They'd instantly lose that moderation under their fear (they had good reason too--some Romans used Christians as human torches centuries ago, just for being Christian), and Christianity would be pretty much dead.

Also, you need polar views to establish a war... and look how we've benefited from those.

Catherineanne · Dec 23, 2005

The advantage to moderation is that it is where most of us live, for most of the time, quite happily. We all understand what it is, and we gain security and stability from it.

The aim of extremism is to move the ground upon which moderates happily settle down, and from which they would not move without someone to wake them up to other ideas. So, for example, the suffragettes recognised the inherent injustice of women not having the vote, and behaved in an extreme manner, in order to raise this issue, and bring it onto the political agenda. That in turn led to debate, and eventually (a long time afterwards) to a change of ground, such that today nobody thinks we are extreme if we believe that women deserve to be able to vote.

We need both extremist thinkers and moderate thinkers, imo. What we do not need is those who mistake extreme action for extreme thinking, and who target innocent people in order to get their message across. That benefits nobody, and only leads towards anarchy. Imo.

xAtheistx · Dec 23, 2005

Catherineanne said:
What we do not need is those who mistake extreme action for extreme thinking, and who target innocent people in order to get their message across. That benefits nobody, and only leads towards anarchy. Imo.

Nonsense. That benefits the person doing the targetting, and leads towards dictatorship.

Just look at WWII...

Rygel · Dec 24, 2005

As long as you are within two standard deviations of the mean, you're normal.

If not, then you are an outlier.

Merlin · Dec 24, 2005

Rev 3: 15 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16 So, because you are lukewarmneither hot nor coldI am about to spit you out of my mouth.

Catherineanne · Dec 26, 2005

xAtheistx said:
Nonsense. That benefits the person doing the targetting, and leads towards dictatorship.

Just look at WWII...

I'm sure that if you tried really hard you could disagree with me without calling what I say nonsense.

As to WWII, I think that illustrates very nicely that nobody benefits from anarchy, least of all dictators. I think it was Ghandhi who observed that however bad the regime, and however bad the tyrant, they always fall in the end, and good prevails. Every time.

xAtheistx · Dec 26, 2005

Catherineanne said:
I'm sure that if you tried really hard you could disagree with me without calling what I say nonsense.

As to WWII, I think that illustrates very nicely that nobody benefits from anarchy, least of all dictators. I think it was Ghandhi who observed that however bad the regime, and however bad the tyrant, they always fall in the end, and good prevails. Every time.

Well, this makes sense. But it smells like bologna.

Ghandhi's right... but it's not that "good prevails every time" ... no one government, or ruling country/party, good or bad, has withstood the test of time. Power is constantly shifting hands. And if you think this is not true, you obviously aren't up on current events. Middle East anybody?

The time of the third Reich wasn't an anarchy... it was a time of military rule, to an extent a dictatorship. Anarchy, like communism, is an impossible to achieve government that is thought of through good intentions... but that's a discussion for another time.

Nazi Germany is an excellent example of an extremist point of view though. They were extreme in their beliefs, and they followed that up with action. I obviously don't approve of the ****s, but at least they had guts.

P.S. Didn't mean to insult your nonsense. Why, if it weren't for nonsense, there would be no sensical things. Make sense?

Eudaimonist · Dec 27, 2005

The Seeker said:
However, is there any inherent value in being moderate? It is widely acknowledged moderation is the best way in certain areas (diet, alcohol, etc.), but does that necessarily mean that the "middle road" is always the best one?

In philosophy, moderation never meant "the middle road". It was never calculated by finding the end points and calculating the center. Rather, moderation meant "what the wise person would do", and the extremes (of vice) were measured outwards from that point.

BTW, it is silly to speak of moderation when it comes to political views. Moderation had to do with ethical behavior.

The Seeker · Dec 27, 2005

Eudaimonist said:
In philosophy, moderation never meant "the middle road". It was never calculated by finding the end points and calculating the center. Rather, moderation meant "what the wise person would do", and the extremes (of vice) were measured outwards from that point.

But is that how it is used in modern parlance? I wish I had a fiver for every time somebody said "What we need is for moderates on both sides to come together to find a consensus"

The Seeker · Dec 27, 2005

Catherineanne said:
I'm sure that if you tried really hard you could disagree with me without calling what I say nonsense.

As to WWII, I think that illustrates very nicely that nobody benefits from anarchy, least of all dictators. I think it was Ghandhi who observed that however bad the regime, and however bad the tyrant, they always fall in the end, and good prevails. Every time.

Don't take this personally, but how can you expect people not to call stuff like this nonsense?

For a start, to refer to WWII as "anarchy" is so laughable it is beyond comprehension. Anarchy refers to a society without hierarchy, without rulers (an-archos).

As to "good prevails", that is complacency of the most dangerous kind and simply not true, as the Spanish Civil War (to take one example) shows us.

FreezBee · Dec 27, 2005

The Seeker said:
But is that how it is used in modern parlance? I wish I had a fiver for every time somebody said "What we need is for moderates on both sides to come together to find a consensus"

"moderates on both sides"
Does that refer to extremely moderate people or moderately extreme people? (on both sides)

I believe to remeber that Aristotle coined the phrase "the golden mean" in his Ethics. But he considered ethics to be the entry point of politics, so in the end it would mean to avoid political extremes. But it's too many years ago since I read the Ethics for me to remember.

- FreezBee

Eudaimonist · Dec 27, 2005

FreezBee said:
But he considered ethics to be the entry point of politics, so in the end it would mean to avoid political extremes.

No, it would simply have meant to be thoughtful (not hasty or rash) in selecting one's political views. It would not have meant choosing the midpoint between whatever extremes might be available. There is no way one can use the Golden Mean all by itself to select the best politics. The principle simply did not work that way.

If anyone can prove me wrong with some quote from Aristotle, please go right ahead.

Eudaimonist · Dec 27, 2005

The Seeker said:
But is that how it is used in modern parlance?

The use of the word "moderate" in modern times is simply a modern usage of the word, just as the word "virtue" has different implications today than it did back then. There's little point in speaking of Aristotle when talking about "moderates" today.

Catherineanne · Dec 27, 2005

xAtheistx said:
P.S. Didn't mean to insult your nonsense. Why, if it weren't for nonsense, there would be no sensical things. Make sense?

Not at all. But I like things that make no sense. That is why I am a Christian.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me, but I like to promote moderation of language. Say what you like, as long as it is polite. Then I will be equally polite back. Makes it much more fun.

As for defining what the Third Reich was or was not, well, I don't think we need find one word. Anarchy is one. Dictatorship is another. Genocide is another. Either way, it did not survive, and thank God for that. And neither will any of the others.

Catherineanne · Dec 27, 2005

The Seeker said:
Don't take this personally, but how can you expect people not to call stuff like this nonsense?

For a start, to refer to WWII as "anarchy" is so laughable it is beyond comprehension. Anarchy refers to a society without hierarchy, without rulers (an-archos).

As to "good prevails", that is complacency of the most dangerous kind and simply not true, as the Spanish Civil War (to take one example) shows us.

Don't take this personally, but describing anything written by another person as so laughable as to be beyond comprehension is not the way to engage them in debate. You do not gain credibility by using such language.

What you call 'most dangerous complacency' is what I would call faith in God, and in all things working together for good, according to his will. I see nothing complacent about that, nor in anything Ghandhi wrote or said or did. Nor Our Lord either.

The Seeker · Dec 27, 2005

Catherineanne said:
Don't take this personally, but describing anything written by another person as so laughable as to be beyond comprehension is not the way to engage them in debate. You do not gain credibility by using such language.

Edit: maybe I was a little harsh before, I apologise. But please try to understand that when you describe the Third Reich as "anarchy" you are perpetuating the abuse of a word that refers to everything I believe in, liberty, justice, human equality. It is an insult to those anarchists who died fighting against fascism throughout Europe.

What you call 'most dangerous complacency' is what I would call faith in God, and in all things working together for good, according to his will.

The two often coincide.

The Seeker · Dec 27, 2005

Eudaimonist said:
The use of the word "moderate" in modern times is simply a modern usage of the word, just as the word "virtue" has different implications today than it did back then. There's little point in speaking of Aristotle when talking about "moderates" today.

To be perfectly honest, I wasn't aware of the origins of the phrase

As I say, I was thinking of the modern conception of the "golden mean" as an end unto itself.

Moderation and the "golden mean"

The Seeker

Guest

Veteran

The Seeker

Guest

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Rygel

Guest

Paradigm Buster

Well-Known Member

Active Member

I believe in life before death!

The Seeker

Guest

The Seeker

Guest

Veteran

I believe in life before death!

I believe in life before death!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Seeker

Guest

The Seeker

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency