Doctrine of the Mean

[Free Capitalist 0]

I hope it's clear that, if any objections could be made at all, at least they're not obvious.

Are you stating that there are no worthy objections to Doctine of the Mean?

Not at all. It would take a patient, in-depth investigation, by a serious philosopher, versed in Greek, to make a complete analysis of all aspects of that doctrine and other aspects of Aristotle's ethical theory. I'm not averse to Ayn Rand's point that maybe some things in it weren't stated, that some perhaps were misstated, and I'm glad she accomplished important things, such as that very importantly putting to words something that Aristotle (demonstrably) believed believed implicitly.

However, as I said, different people addressing themselves to philosophical issues can often address the same subjects differently. Tara Smith writes very differently from Ayn Rand, and often raises quite different issues, from a different perspective. My interest isn't to pick holes in every little thing I see, but to pick up from good men as much as possible about human nature, selfishness and virtues in man, and other philosophic insights that they've reached but I haven't. Reading the Doctrine of the Mean on my part does not make me that philosopher who's gone through all of it in the original Greek and made a final analysis; I read a translation, and delight just in wonderful philosophic observations on human nature, made 50 years and 2,300 years ago.

[ewv 0]

I hope it's clear that, if any objections could be made at all, at least they're not obvious.

Are you stating that there are no worthy objections to Doctine of the Mean?

Not at all. It would take a patient, in-depth investigation, by a serious philosopher, versed in Greek, to make a complete analysis of all aspects of that doctrine and other aspects of Aristotle's ethical theory. I'm not averse to Ayn Rand's point that maybe some things in it weren't stated, that some perhaps were misstated, and I'm glad she accomplished important things, such as that very importantly putting to words something that Aristotle (demonstrably) believed believed implicitly.

However, as I said, different people addressing themselves to philosophical issues can often address the same subjects differently. Tara Smith writes very differently from Ayn Rand, and often raises quite different issues, from a different perspective. My interest isn't to pick holes in every little thing I see, but to pick up from good men as much as possible about human nature, selfishness and virtues in man, and other philosophic insights that they've reached but I haven't. Reading the Doctrine of the Mean on my part does not make me that philosopher who's gone through all of it in the original Greek and made a final analysis; I read a translation, and delight just in wonderful philosophic observations on human nature, made 50 years and 2,300 years ago.

The doctrine of the mean is well understood and so are the well-known criticisms of it. This is not a subtle issue and does not require reading ancient Greek to understand . You can find it covered in any history of philosophy, including Leonard Peikoff's lectures, to varying depths of analysis. Ayn Rand, as is well known, admired Aristotle, and one can find much of merit in Aristotle's writings, but there is nothing controversial about Ayn Rand's categorical rejection of the doctrine of the mean.

[Carlos 0]

Maybe an analogy within exercise can help.

To stimulate lean body tissue growth a person (according to my ideas) must workout with 100% intensity. In general the definition of intense is to be extreme. Now let us say hypothetically that one could stimulate lean body tissue growth with less than 100% intensity. If this is so (which I do not agree with) where would you know where this point was at. In all actuality you can only measure o% intensity and 100% intensity and everything in between is undemonstrable/invalid. The prinicples of proper exercise are intensity, duration and frequency. But, the primary principle in exercise that sets the next two is intensity, just like the primary virtue in ethics is rationality and everything else follows it.

A person either works out with intensity or they do not, just like a person is either rational or not, there is no measurable, demonstrable or valid way to be somewhere in between. A person either applies reason or they do not, and if they are not using reason/being rational, then they are using something else such as emotions or feelings and hence being irrational which of course leads a person away from enhancing/flourishing their life.

This might be true. But the exact number of workouts would differ for each person. Would you give the scrawny person weighing 120 pounds the exact same workout routine as the built 180 pounds person? The doctrine of the mean would tell you to contextually apply these principles towards each individual.

When you consider that for many, many physical processes in reality there is necessarily some optimum quantity of something needed, the doctrine of the mean really doesn't appear so earthshaking.

Not working out is bad, working out too much is bad, working out an optimum amount is good; that should be self-evident. What more can the doctrine of the mean add to this so as to have any meaningful value? It cannot tell you the proper amount needed for working, because that is something that can only obtained by empirical (scientific) studies.

[Free Capitalist 0]

The doctrine of the mean is well understood and so are the well-known criticisms of it. This is not a subtle issue and does not require reading ancient Greek to understand . You can find it covered in any history of philosophy, including Leonard Peikoff's lectures, to varying depths of analysis. Ayn Rand, as is well known, admired Aristotle, and one can find much of merit in Aristotle's writings, but there is nothing controversial about Ayn Rand's categorical rejection of the doctrine of the mean.

I don't find a categorical rejection of the doctrine of the mean in Ayn Rand. I find an emphatic statement that explicitly stating an ethical standard is important, and I find a categorical statement that aversion to extremes, and non-objective definition are contemptible contents of any ethical theory -- both statements which I completely agree with. It's possible AR found his ethics or the doctrine less useful than other parts of Aristotle, but I don't find a categorically total rejection of it, or of whole content of the Ethics, that seems to be endorsed by some of the Forum users.

If we can state that the Ethics has something useful and important, and that regardless of the ultimate veracity of the totality of the Mean Doctrine there may be something interesting in aspects of it, that's all I really wanted to establish.

[ewv 0]

The doctrine of the mean is well understood and so are the well-known criticisms of it. This is not a subtle issue and does not require reading ancient Greek to understand . You can find it covered in any history of philosophy, including Leonard Peikoff's lectures, to varying depths of analysis. Ayn Rand, as is well known, admired Aristotle, and one can find much of merit in Aristotle's writings, but there is nothing controversial about Ayn Rand's categorical rejection of the doctrine of the mean.

I don't find a categorical rejection of the doctrine of the mean in Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff did.

I don't find a categorically total rejection of it, or of whole content of the Ethics, that seems to be endorsed by some of the Forum users. If we can state that the Ethics has something useful and important, and that regardless of the ultimate veracity of the totality of the Mean Doctrine there may be something interesting in aspects of it, that's all I really wanted to establish.

No one said that she rejected everything in Aristotle's ethics, but the doctrine of the mean is contrary to the Objectivist ethics and should not be promoted as otherwise.

[Carlos 0]

I hope it's clear that, if any objections could be made at all, at least they're not obvious.

Are you stating that there are no worthy objections to Doctine of the Mean?

Not at all. It would take a patient, in-depth investigation, by a serious philosopher, versed in Greek, to make a complete analysis of all aspects of that doctrine and other aspects of Aristotle's ethical theory...

I'm against this whole view that only some well studied elite academic could be capable of forming a proper assessment of Aristotle's ethics. If it (the 'implicit objectivity') isn't obvious enough to be apprehended and recognized by a normal person under careful scrutiny then it is either not there or hidden behind layers of unnecessary verbosity. If it is the latter, why should an honest, well meaning man do such a thing?

The statements urging certain individuals on the forum (who are obviously well read on philosophy) to brush up on their Aristotle sounds more like academic pretentiousness than a solid argument. Any claims of sifting a hidden meaning from material that other equally or more capable minds can't find should be recognized immediately as being suspect.

[RayK 0]

I hope it's clear that, if any objections could be made at all, at least they're not obvious.

Are you stating that there are no worthy objections to Doctine of the Mean?

Not at all. It would take a patient, in-depth investigation, by a serious philosopher, versed in Greek, to make a complete analysis of all aspects of that doctrine and other aspects of Aristotle's ethical theory...

I'm against this whole view that only some well studied elite academic could be capable of forming a proper assessment of Aristotle's ethics. If it (the 'implicit objectivity') isn't obvious enough to be apprehended and recognized by a normal person under careful scrutiny then it is either not there or hidden behind layers of unnecessary verbosity. If it is the latter, why should an honest, well meaning man do such a thing?

The statements urging certain individuals on the forum (who are obviously well read on philosophy) to brush up on their Aristotle sounds more like academic pretentiousness than a solid argument. Any claims of sifting a hidden meaning from material that other equally or more capable minds can't find should be recognized immediately as being suspect.

I agree with Jordan. If Free Capitalist's statements were correct then they would transfer to every philosopher including Ayn Rand. Which means we (or at least me) that are not "serious philosophers" should not be attempting to critique those philosophers work. This would of course mean we should not critique any realm that we are not "serious" about to include economics, math, physics, politics, exercise, and so on. I guess we should just shut our mouths and brains and accept what ever the real "serious" person puts forth without question. I cannot imagine ever doing anything like I just wrote.

[JRoberts 0]

I agree with Jordan. If Free Capitalist's statements were correct then they would transfer to every philosopher including Ayn Rand. Which means we (or at least me) that are not "serious philosophers" should not be attempting to critique those philosophers work. This would of course mean we should not critique any realm that we are not "serious" about to include economics, math, physics, politics, exercise, and so on. I guess we should just shut our mouths and brains and accept what ever the real "serious" person puts forth without question. I cannot imagine ever doing anything like I just wrote.

I can't speak for FC. But I will offer an opinion.

It is true that we can all understand Aristotle. But there are nuances of his philosophy that require a professional. That is why there are professors of Aristotle. This does not take away from the ability of your average person, or at least your intelligent person, to understand Aristotle. But it does mean that a full, complete, in depth understanding of Aristotle requires a professional. Why?

For one thing, Aristotle did not leave us any works. The Nicomachean Ethics is not a book published by Aristotle, but rather is his class notes. As such, the book is full of points that leaves one wondering "Well, what exactly does this mean?". And this is natural, if you understand that it was lecture notes and not a book. He wrote down the basic points, to be explained and fleshed through later to his students. Also, Aristotle was notorious for inventing his own words, which makes the translation of these words very, very difficult. Aristotle also, in writing in technical Greek, used words that English has no equivalent, which makes understanding the original words important to a fuller understanding of Aristotle. Finally, every translator adds a bit of his own philosophy into the translation. This can be quite dangerous, as you can find through different translators vastly different meanings from phrase to phrase. When I first read Plato's Symposium in Greek, I was shocked at how different it was from modern translations. The same is true for Aristotle.

However, this does not mean that other's can't read Aristotle in translation, understand the basics, and that's that. We all can read Dostoevsky in translation, appreciate and love his fiction, understand his messages, and be content. But, only those who have taken the time to truly study Dostoevsky and learn Russian can fully understand the depth and complexities of his works. This is a sad but true fact of human existence.

Nevertheless, for those who want to understand Aristotle, I think reading him in a good translation, with maybe a good accompanying commentary, is sufficient to understand what Aristotle is saying.

[JRoberts 0]

When you consider that for many, many physical processes in reality there is necessarily some optimum quantity of something needed, the doctrine of the mean really doesn't appear so earthshaking.

By this logic, when you consider that most processes require a proper use of reason, then Ayn Rand's formulation of this is not so earth-shattering either.

Not working out is bad, working out too much is bad, working out an optimum amount is good; that should be self-evident. What more can the doctrine of the mean add to this so as to have any meaningful value? It cannot tell you the proper amount needed for working, because that is something that can only obtained by empirical (scientific) studies.

Using reason is good, not using reason is bad, incorrectly using reason is bad-it is self-evident. Therefore, we should discuss it or say anything about it.

[JRoberts 0]

Using reason is good, not using reason is bad, incorrectly using reason is bad-it is self-evident. Therefore, we should discuss it or say anything about it.

should not discuss it...

[Free Capitalist 0]

The doctrine of the mean is well understood and so are the well-known criticisms of it. This is not a subtle issue and does not require reading ancient Greek to understand . You can find it covered in any history of philosophy, including Leonard Peikoff's lectures, to varying depths of analysis. Ayn Rand, as is well known, admired Aristotle, and one can find much of merit in Aristotle's writings, but there is nothing controversial about Ayn Rand's categorical rejection of the doctrine of the mean.

I don't find a categorical rejection of the doctrine of the mean in Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff did.

If you can cite me a passage where Ayn Rand describes the doctrine of the mean or the whole ethical theory as unequivocably and irrevocably terrible, I'll take it into consideration.

[Free Capitalist 0]

If Free Capitalist's statements were correct then they would transfer to every philosopher including Ayn Rand. Which means we (or at least me) that are not "serious philosophers" should not be attempting to critique those philosophers work.

These statements absolutely apply to Ayn Rand! You'd want some Greek 2000 years later to read her in the English language, wouldn't you? 'Course you should critique these works, I can confirm that you know English! And you yourself expect that a person knows at least a modicum of English before they critique something you wrote on the Forum, right?

Anyone can try and grasp the basics of Ayn Rand, or Aristotle, but only a serious philosopher with a solid knowledge of English should attempt to provide a definitive analysis on the complex ITOE, or even what "A is A" means. She's been harangued by her enemies enough, and deserves a fair hearing from a person qualified in the language of her communication. I think it's only fair.

[Free Capitalist 0]

By the way, I didn't mean to lock up this thread with saying that only a Greek-reading person can comment. We all can comment, I personally read him in translation, so for the intents and purposes of this thread and our conversation, a more or less basic and general knowledge of his theory is sufficient. But I've seen the interplay between Aristotle's Greek and his English, especially when my Aristotle professor years ago unpacked extraordinarily clunky English translations into vastly more insightful original. The meaning often changed so much, from what I thought he said, to what he really did, that it was scary. So if we're going to pass a definitive and final judgment on the Ethics, let's do that carefully and thoughtfully. I wasn't even thinking about that final judgment here. I merely said that the writing contained useful and insightful observations about Man, which helped me in my life. It won't help others live their lives if we throw the thing out into the dustbin, and lack reason to ever look there again.

[RickWilmes 0]

Dr. Peikoff discusses the doctrine of the mean in his lecture History of Philosophy: Founders of Western Philosophy : Vol. 1 Lecture 5 Tape 2. In essence, the doctrine of the mean is rejected because Aristotle's ethics is based on observing the wise and good Athenians and is not based on a scientific ethics(emphasis added). According to the lecture, the mean is determined by "just knowing, good living and direct insight" and fails to differentiate between differences in degree and differences in kind.

Now consider what Ayn Rand has to say about ethics.

What is morality, or ethics? It is a code of values to guide man's choices and actions--the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code. (Emphasis added.)

How is the doctrine of the mean discovered and defined when Aristotle's response is "you will just know"?

[ewv 0]

The doctrine of the mean is well understood and so are the well-known criticisms of it. This is not a subtle issue and does not require reading ancient Greek to understand . You can find it covered in any history of philosophy, including Leonard Peikoff's lectures, to varying depths of analysis. Ayn Rand, as is well known, admired Aristotle, and one can find much of merit in Aristotle's writings, but there is nothing controversial about Ayn Rand's categorical rejection of the doctrine of the mean.

I don't find a categorical rejection of the doctrine of the mean in Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff did.

If you can cite me a passage where Ayn Rand describes the doctrine of the mean or the whole ethical theory as unequivocably and irrevocably terrible, I'll take it into consideration.

The Objectivist sources rejecting the doctrine of the mean have been cited in this thread several times. No one said his "whole ethical theory is terrible". Please stick to the topic and avoid strawmen.

[ewv 0]

If Free Capitalist's statements were correct then they would transfer to every philosopher including Ayn Rand. Which means we (or at least me) that are not "serious philosophers" should not be attempting to critique those philosophers work.

These statements absolutely apply to Ayn Rand! You'd want some Greek 2000 years later to read her in the English language, wouldn't you? 'Course you should critique these works, I can confirm that you know English! And you yourself expect that a person knows at least a modicum of English before they critique something you wrote on the Forum, right?

Anyone can try and grasp the basics of Ayn Rand, or Aristotle, but only a serious philosopher with a solid knowledge of English should attempt to provide a definitive analysis on the complex ITOE, or even what "A is A" means. She's been harangued by her enemies enough, and deserves a fair hearing from a person qualified in the language of her communication. I think it's only fair.

No no one said there is no role for professional scholars studying a philosopher. Please avoid strawman arguments. The doctrine of the mean is now widely understood, as are the commone criticisms of it, and can routinely be found discussed in ordinary history of philosophy texts. Understanding it no longer requires special "scholarship" in Greek or in Aristotle in order to reject it. This is not subtle and is not controversial. There is no requirement for anyone to read Aristotle in Greek or to even read all of his ethics to understand this. The rejection of the doctrine of the mean by Objectivists is not controversial or based on ignorance. The whole issue of the doctrine of the mean as it relates to Objectivism is a minor issue and is very easy to understand. There are no grounds for anyone to continue to promote the doctrine of the mean as somehow compatible with Objectivism.