Are you familiar with the ancient philosophical teaching of the "golden mean"? (I'm sure Adam is!) It is the term for the happy middle ground between two extremes in any situation - one of excess and the other of deficiency.
Socrates taught that a person "must know how to choose the mean and avoid the extremes on either side, as far as possible."
Plato said, "If we disregard due proportion by giving anything what is too much for it; too much canvas to a boat, too much nutriment to a body, too much authority to a soul, the consequence is always shipwreck."
The teaching of the golden mean is most associated with Aristotle, who, in his writings on the virtues, constantly used the phrase, "... is the Middle state between ..." His teaching on the moral virtues and the pyschology of the soul is based on the golden mean between two extremes.
Now take a look at Ecclesiastes 7:15-18. Kind of sounds like the golden mean! (a concept that would not have been foreign to the author of Ecclesiastes, who came along a couple of centuries after Aristotle). So what do you think? Is there a golden mean, a happy middle ground, between righteousness and wickedness? Is it possible to be too righteous? I have some thoughts but I'd love to know yours first....
[thanks to Wikipedia for helpful explanation and quotes on the golden mean]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I don't think it's possible to be too righteous- I'm certainly not capable of it. Good is good, and more of good is better, not worse. :) I tend to read those verses as being about how I should think of myself instead of about what I should be. I can't just think of myself as God's beloved daughter, because then I might fall into pride, but I also can't think of myself only as a "sinner saved by grace", because that would be denying the work of Christ to reconcile me to God. The golden mean, then, would be keeping both in mind, thinking of myself as a person who is simultaneously justified and sinful. Which, I think, is a reasonably healthy assessment of the condition of the Christian.
(Was I the only person who thought the golden mean was the limit of the ratio of a number in the Fibonacci series to the previous number in the series? Dave, back me up!)
Thanks for your thoughtful reflection, Becky! I like it. And yeah, the golden mean (i.e., golden ratio) is also a mathematic concept.... (1.61803)
I think the question is: the mean between what two things?
Seems to me all kinds of continuua can be created, and if I change one of the endpoints, does that mean what is right and good changes as well?
E.g. the mean between anorexia and overeating would be moderation. But what if I turn it into just eating and overeating. Would it then mean that what I should strive for is eating slightly more than what I should?
I think there probably is a more solid basis for determining the good.
I agree that "the mean between what two things" is a good question. To me, righteousness is the golden mean b/t wickedness and maybe fanaticism or perfectionism.
Becky, I like your understanding of the golden mean being thinking of ourselves as simultaneously justified and sinful.
Btw, Ecclesiastes doesn't actually use the terminology "golden mean" - it just sounds a lot like what he's using. He does, to me, seem to be arguing for some happy medium b/t wickedness and righteousness. Of course, how he defines righteousness might be different from how we do....
I believe this means to accept your sinfulness, knowing you can do noting about it, but do not give into it. I don't think this means to be a little evil and a little good.
Post a Comment