The Golden Mean
Hello everyone from 'to kleinon astu' Athens. Can you help me with this please? I want to know how one can demonstrate the validity the Law of the Golden Mean.
Aristotle,trying to show virtue is a middle way, said
1.In decorative arts such as pottery one seeks to stay in the middle ground between extremes
2.Since virtue superior to pottery etc. that must also be true for virtue too
3.therefore virtue is a middle way between extremes
What kind of logic is this? I don't know of any logic rule that what is true for the inferior is also true for the superior, is there such a rule? And, how does he make such a generalization given that all existing virtues may be 124932409328028 in number? I haven't read the Nicomachean Ethics, just other texts about that book. My dream is to know whether the law of the Golden Mean is valid and that it were not just a piece of advice i read somewhere. Thank you!
Aristotle,trying to show virtue is a middle way, said
1.In decorative arts such as pottery one seeks to stay in the middle ground between extremes
2.Since virtue superior to pottery etc. that must also be true for virtue too
3.therefore virtue is a middle way between extremes
What kind of logic is this? I don't know of any logic rule that what is true for the inferior is also true for the superior, is there such a rule? And, how does he make such a generalization given that all existing virtues may be 124932409328028 in number? I haven't read the Nicomachean Ethics, just other texts about that book. My dream is to know whether the law of the Golden Mean is valid and that it were not just a piece of advice i read somewhere. Thank you!
Comments (9)
Assuming that the middle ground between the extremes is virtue for pottery.
A virtuous person must also be virtuous in pottery, so he must stay at the middle ground to be virtuous.
If he needs to be at the middle to be virtuous at pottery then be extension he will need to be virtuous in any art like pottery. Therefore all arts like pottery require a person to follow the middle path to be virtuous.
Now to me it seems natural that if all arts like pottery require a virtuous person to tread the middle path then that virtuous person must tread the middle path to be virtuous.
A virtuous would not have needed to practice pottery for years to be called virtuous in the art, if he did then he wouldn't or rather he couldn't be a virtuous person. So whatever way that virtuous person decides to follow to be virtuous in pottery must be what he does for anything else and not specifically for it and since we know that to be virtuous in pottery we must tread the middle path therefore we also know that a virtuous person decides to follow the middle path to me virtuous in pottery like he does in anything else. Therefore virtue is the middle path.
This is three-valued logic with the middle ground being everything and anything between the recognized and named extremes. This example is a fascinating contrast to Aristotle's principle of non-contradiction which rules out the possibility of any middle way.
It's a bit more complicated than this. He gives examples such as eating, the correct amount being the mean between too much and too little, and courage, being the mean between cowardly and rash. So it's an argument from examples.
However, Aristotle's Golden Mean, if applied reflexively to itself means there's such a thing as too Golden Meanish. Go figure!
Please explain what you mean. I don't understand.
Too much of everything is bad.
Ergo,
Too much of too much of everything is bad is bad too.
He probably meant that as one gets farther from the right way , they approach the extremes. So the rights way or the truth is not bad even if it is too much because the that statement doesn't apply to truth.
Same as how in Buddhism, the law of impermanence doesn't apply to the Noble Truths. If they did then Buddha's philosophy would not hold.
See Paradox Of Self-reference.