THE GOLDEN MEAN

While Aristotle’s theory of happiness is the most interesting part of his ethics, the doctrine of the Golden Mean (Nothing in excess!) is the most famous, and for this reason alone, it makes good sense to devote an entire entry to it, even if it is short and mostly uneventful. It is well known that Aristotle virtually equates virtue with moderation, and places it between the two extremes showing either its deficiency or its excess. Thus the virtue of courage is placed between cowardice (too much fear) and recklessness (too little fear); the virtue of self-respect is placed between vanity and humility, etc.

This principle of moderation makes some ordinary practical sense in most ordinary, pedestrian situations. It is not, however, suitable for most extraordinary situations, where excess should be best. They say that the sculptor Phidias, if I am not mistaken, fainted in front of his just finished statue, thus showing an excess of emotion (in which the great Aristotle must have been deficient, by all available evidence). There is nothing wrong with creative passion, where moderation would have been a serious detraction, and as for all heroic deeds, which are also results of great passion and a complete lack of moderation, how would it be possible for Aristotle to describe heroic passion other than as a great virtue, where moderation would have been an immediate disqualifier?

I confess that in my account I have deliberately oversimplified Aristotle’s doctrine of the golden mean, and that his actual conception of sophrosyne is far more nuanced than here represented. But my point has been to demonstrate how easy it is to misconstrue his theory, to the extent of attributing to him a repudiation of all noble passions as incompatible with sophrosyne. In such a misconstruction, much of the blame must be his, as his pedantic style and his gross underestimation of emotion in particular and of the irrational element in general, have desensitized his theories to the point where he literally falls into error, in his discussion of the golden mean.

Indeed, his level-headed scholarship and similar personal qualities are a great asset to him in conducting a multitude of scientific and philosophical inquiries, but they equally make him less qualified in discussions touching upon the irrational part of human nature.