Skip to main content

How Relative Can We Get? - Clabo

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. 

Comments

  1. Jackson RiddleOctober 27, 2020 at 12:09 AM

    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.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lily CaswellOctober 27, 2020 at 7:49 AM

    I 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

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

A Man with Self-Control? - Clabo

Throughout all of the ancient epics, the Aeneid has always been my favorite. I have always found Aeneas to be a virtuous warrior, and I was even reminded of this fact within the first three books. The main point that stands out to me is when Aeneas sees Helen hiding during the fall of Troy. He is overcome with anger and wants to kill her because she is one of the main reasons that the war started in the first place. However, he is patient and listens to his mother, Venus, and just decides to leave. I feel that if Achilles was placed in that same position, a goddess would not have even had the time to approach him before he had already killed her. Another thing that find impressive in Aeneas's character is the fact that is always slow to act whether it be in listening to the gods advice or even letting a Greek straggler on to his ship. Aeneas, to me, is the perfect example of a man who pursues virtue instead of glory.   This is just my opinion. What are your thoughts? P.S. I co...
6 comments
Read more