Honestly, Aristotle's "Doctrine of the Mean" was probably one of my favorite sections while I was in Philosophy 101. The problem is, however, who is to determine the middle ground between the two extremes. Who is to determine the said specific mean? While some cultures and societies may thrive on the extremes of excessive boastfulness and find nothing wrong with it, others may live in a completely self-depreciative society. They could both look at each other and find the other detestable, but who is to determine where the lines are drawn.
I happen to think that there isn't a true mean or exact middle point of described characteristics between two extremes, but rather I think it is more a set of loose boundaries that encompass the middle ground. One temperament and characteristic cannot solely fit every single situation. I feel as if practice and experience help someone guide their way through social encounters. It may not be a set standard, but rather a game of push and pull between the two extremes.
What are your thoughts?
P.S. I commented on Haley Riddle's and Jackson Riddle's posts.
I like your perspective on this! I too believe that each characteristic is unique in the boundaries that determine its limits; but, as you said, there must be someone who draws that line between beneficial honesty, for example, and brutal honesty. I believe that each culture grows in its values over time, deciding as a community what those boundaries should be, expanding into a democracy over time. And yes, practice and experience are crucial components of the decision. One cannot understand what it means to be proud or humble if they have never experienced such behavior.
ReplyDeleteI had the same question, Clabo. Who decides what the medium between two extremes is and how is the medium defined? I like the way Jackson put it in his comment that the community decides the boundary.
ReplyDelete