Excess and deficiency, both are vices, said Aristotle. The mean between the two is the virtue. Hence, extremes are bad—always bad. “The extremes are opposed both to the mean and to each other, and the mean is opposed to the extremes.” And obviously, the further they are removed from each other, the greater the opposition between the two extremes. Thus, though the generous man appears extravagant compared with the stingy man, the same generous man also appears stingy compared with the spendthrift. The result is that both the stingy one and the spendthrift will denounce the mean, he who is moderate, and will denounce his extreme as vile and evil. Yet, neither the spendthrift nor the stingy are good. This is good-ole fashioned Aristotelian logic. And he’s right.
Balance is good. Wise is the way of the Golden Mean. We seemed to have lost sight of this significant truth. We see this most especially in our politics and the various political causes that we champion. Take any issue, any; for example, take ecology versus business: Tree huggers on the one side, seem to say that there is to be no digging, drilling, or cutting of any kind, anywhere, for whatever reason, “Save the earth!” On the other hand, oil companies and big business corporations seem to be saying, “The earth’s resources are for our taking, so dig, cut, and drill baby drill.”
Everyone is forced to take extreme positions. Every issue, every cause polarized to the most extreme position. Whether we’re talking gun laws or abortion laws, addressing immigration worries or tax concerns, it’s always the same, extreme left or extreme right, make no allowances for anything in between, no balance, no middle ground, no “take what’s best from both sides.” This is a vice.
Yes, of course, we need to drill because we need oil and gas. But yes, we also need to protect the environment because we need clean drinkable water. Yes, indeed, we need to curtail government spending. But yes, we also need to have a just and fair tax system which adequately addresses unfair wealth accumulation. Yes, we need THIS (right side), and yes, we need THAT (left side). We need both. We need the Golden Mean between the two extremes.
Why is it so difficult to find an appropriate balance? Why is it so difficult for the one side to admit that the opposing side has some valid points to make? Why must one feel as if he has betrayed his/her side simply for acknowledging that the other side is not all wrong or all bad?
The longer one lives the more one realizes that grey is the dominate color between black and white. There are far fewer simplistic black and white choices in this world than we’d like to admit. Sure, we’d love to simplify things and pretend that there is a simple, straightforward “this or that,” “up or down,” “yes or no” answer to many of the pressing questions and issues of the day: “We need oil and jobs? Oh, well then, of course, let’s certainly drill.” “Wait, we need clean drinking water? Oh, then definitely stop all drilling!” “We need investment security? Well, certainly regulate the banking system,” and so-on and so-forth. The fact is that none of our social-political challenges lend themselves to easy, one-sided solutions; if that is, we are looking for real solutions.
What we need is wisdom, insight, and comprehension. What we’re getting is extreme presentations. Yet, a sound rational mind knows that no one-side is always right and that no one-side is always best and that no one-side is always good. Extremes are always bad. What we need therefore is 3-D vision. We need to see three dimensionally. We need to see three sides to our abnormal two-sided debates. We need depth of perception. We need politicians who will take all sides into consideration and delineate a fine, balanced, and mean approach to our most challenging issues and platforms.
I know. Wishful thinking, not going to happen!? Yet, if we fail to reign in the extremes, we’re trouble.
No comments:
Post a Comment