Skip to main content

All Things In Moderation~ Logan Turner

 Ah, the Golden Rule. A philosophy I tried to live by long before I ever heard of it, and tried even harder to live by once I had. One thing about this particular philosophy I like is the fact that it can be applied to literally anything. For example: eating. You eat too much and you're a glutton, and if you eat too little, you're going to be malnourished. It's just that simple.  

Which reminds me. Another thing I love about this particular part of Aristotle's philosophy is how simple it is. It all boils down to "Don't do too much or too little of one thing." Bringing back the eating example, if you eat too much, you'll become overweight and be at risk of heart disease, if you eat too little, you'll be tired all the time, physically weak, and underweight. But if you eat the right amount, you'll be perfectly healthy (assuming you eat healthy foods, anyway). 

 

Edit: Commented on Rachael Gregson's and Braylan Stringfellow's posts

Comments

  1. Jackson RiddleOctober 27, 2020 at 12:15 AM

    Yes, the age-old Golden Rule, understood by many and lived by few. Your examples seem to focus on the idea of moderation, a topic that Aristotle has definitely been focusing on in regards to virtues and values. The golden rule, however, is not centered around this idea of moderation; instead it focuses on treating others as we want to be treated. At least that's what I was taught.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Aristotle Might Not Like Me...Or Jesus//Haylee Lynd

      Aristotle says that the man who does not get angry at the things he should be angry at "is thought unlikely to defend himself; and to endure being insulted and put up with insult to one's friends is slavish" (Aristotle 41). While he states that passivity is preferred to excessive anger, he still gives great criticism to it.  In contrast to Aristotle, the man who Christians believe to be the most just is Jesus who states in Matthew 5:39-40, "...do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well." Essentially, arguing that one is not to respond in anger when insulted or hurt, to not defend one's self. Most individual's are unable to achieve this. Our natural instinct is to defend ourselves, especially in physical cases. However, Christians strive to be like Jesus in this way. I would also argue that it is a very admirable wa...
2 comments
Read more

Oedipus’ Children/Siblings—Lily Caswell

Ok, so Oedipus is a bit of a train wreck to say the least. I love the fact that even after Oedipus found out about his less-than-appealing relationship with his mother, he still tried to look after his children/siblings. After he gouged his eyes out, his children came to him at which point Oedipus talked about how that when they were old enough to marry, no one would want them due to them being products of incest. He said for the people not to condemn them based on what their father had done. Even after he knew what he had done and what his children were, he still wanted the best for them. I commented on Logan’s and Ian’s posts.
3 comments
Read more

Overanalyzing Everyone's Intentions Here-Rachael Gregson

 First off, I'd like to say this is going to be a two part blog post, because a lot of things happened in this reading assignment that demands to be discussed.  As with any war I've realized, it's tricky not to fall into the initial perspective I am given. I began this book skeptical of Hector because I was bias toward the movie Troy, which was told mostly through the eyes of Achilles, but neither were what I was expecting. It's actually funny that they both hold values completely opposite from one another. Hector represented everything related to city-state pride, honor, and humility whereas Achilles was everything wild, reckless, and unpredictable solitary. This isn't to say that Hector is all good and Achilles all bad. Both had instances where I rooted for the other more or less. I just thought it was interesting how their two personalities represented something that basically causes all wars: the clash between civilization and savagery.  Secondly, I'm not de...
2 comments
Read more