When we discussed Aristotle, we mentioned the idea of the Golden Mean which is the medium between excess and deficiency of any certain thing and the aim of practical wisdom. Practical wisdom is based on moral character and virtues and learned through habituation, as we established in class.
Here is my criticism of the use of the term, the Golden Mean. I agree that there is a Golden Mean but the use of the term “Golden Mean” seems to be described as a universal term that is applicable to classify any instance. As in, the Golden Mean is the medium between excess and deficiency but because excess and deficiency are different in every situation, the Golden Mean must change per situation and person. In other words, the Golden Mean for me may be different from the Golden Mean for other people because excess and deficiency are unique to each person. Thus, the problem lies in understanding what exactly we, as individual people, define as excess and deficiency. Can we describe the Golden Mean in a universal a way, similar to how Aristotle seems to describe it?
One of the dilemmas that has stuck with me through my classes is Alexander the Great’s achievements over the course of his life. Aristotle tutored Alexander the Great so some have asked whether Alexander lived by his tutor’s ideals through valuing the Golden Mean because Alexander seemed to act in excess and not within the mean. However, it was only excess according to another person’s point of view because to him or her Alexander was leading his life in excess and not according to the Golden Mean. However, for Alexander, his achievements might have been between his idea of excess and deficiency and therein, he did live according to the Golden Mean. This idea can also be applied to deficiency as relative to the individual.
Therefore, when it comes to accomplishments I think that we cannot simply use the term Golden Mean without qualifying it in some way. Thus, when we say Golden Mean, I think that it is important to recognize that it is subjective, therein based on each person’s interpretation.
Maybe I am just thinking of the Golden Mean in a peculiar way (which could be completely off base). Is the Golden Mean subjective and relative to the particular person or situation; on the other hand can it be an unchanging mean that is universally applicable to all situations regardless of the definition of excess and deficiency used by each person?
Thank you for this Manali,
ReplyDeleteI thought about this myself.
After reading Aristotle last weekend, I was very confused about this mean, but after Tuesday's class, the Golden mean made a little bit more sense (Well I like to think that I understand it better).
Aristotle, unlike Plato, is fully aware of the individual. He understands that reactions change depending on the situation. But not only that, he also understands that reaction change according to the individual. In the Nicomachean Ethics, as Aristotle was attempting to define the Golden mean, he said:
"By the Intermediate in the Object I mean what is equidistant from each extremity; this is the same for everyone. But relative to us the intermediate is what is neither superfluous nor deficient; this is not one, and is not the same for everyone."
Now at first I was really confused, because I could swear that he had just contradicted himself with those two sentences. But then I thought of it another way.
It's like in psychology. People say psychology is not a real science because you can't possibly determine how a person is going to behave, because each person is an individual, with his/her own characteristics. But the truth, we all have similar behavioral patterns For example, when in a conflict, our fight or flight response mechanism kicks in. Or when made fun of, or insulted, we all feel hurt. Now the level of pain we feel, or the choice between fight or flight is up to the individual.
Why have I just gone a rampage about Psychology? Well this same train of thought applies to Aristotle's Golden rule. When Aristotle talked of the Golden mean, I began to imagine a range, not just a point. By this I mean that instead of just ONE solution in the middle, he is talking about a good section of solutions in the middle. So everyone is not going to have the same Golden Mean, but they should all somehow fall within that range in the middle.
Is any of this making sense to you? What do you think of this view of Aristotle' Golden mean? Is it completely fallible?
Manali,
ReplyDeleteI liked your post, but I'm not sure if I agree that the mean is subjective.
Aristotle acknowledges that the Golden Mean changes from situation to situation. However, the reasoning employed in determining the mean is objective. Aristotle writes that "the mean [is] relative to us," but it is determined by "reason by reference to which an intelligent person would define it" (Good Life, page 40).
So, the Golden Mean changes depending on the individual and the situation, but the mean is objective for that individual. Someone can believe that they are acting within the mean, but in fact be outside of it. The individual's beliefs and feelings do not affect the mean itself.
Nellie, thanks a lot for your comment! Your psychology based view does make sense and clears some confusion up for me. I like your idea of looking at the Golden Mean as a range in the middle rather than a point that is the middle. Thinking of the mean in that way really helps because it solves a bit of my own confusion. I think I was looking at the mean as an instance but looking at it as a range could then be a common ground for all people, making the mean universally applicable and in line with the original implication that I drew from the golden mean idea.
ReplyDeleteThanks Mills! You point to a very important definitional distinction. I am confused though because I still see that the mean is subjective and changes in relation to the person, the last part you grant. However, the mean would be subjective by nature as it is defined by the subject through its relativity. The idea of the mean itself is objective but it is subjective to that person who is understanding the mean as he or she changes its objectivity into a subjectivity that is relative to the person. Maybe I am understand your definition of objective and subjective incorrectly. Hopefully my side is a bit clearer regarding subjectivity through this comment though.
Manali,
ReplyDeleteWhat Mills is stating is that the subjective mean of an individual might be different from the objective mean - but should always strive towards that objective mean.
Therefore, using your example, Alexander attempted to follow the mean relative to him. However, at that moment in time, he was not thinking in a manner that a rational person would. Thus, though he attempted towards a mean, it did in fact fall short of the objectively true Golden Mean.
I hope this clears things up a bit.