Aristotle’s Nichomachaean Ethics is famous for its idea of the Golden Mean. Aristotle writes, “It is the nature of such things to be destroyed by defect and excess . . .” (2.2). Consequently, he argues that excellence is “a state concerned with a choice, lying in a mean relative to us” (2.6). It is important to note that not every characteristic could be understood this way. For example, “spite, shamelessness, envy” all are bad in themselves (ibid.). He also understood that it was not always easy to determine the mean. For example, in regards to giving and spending money, “to do this to the right person, to the right extent, at the right time, with the right aim, and in the right way, that is not for everyone, nor is it easy . . .” (2.9). All that said, Aristotle believed that the Golden Mean was an important way to understand what an excellent or virtuous individual would look like.
After reading carefully through Aristotle’s Politics, his politics seem to me to be a politics of the Golden Mean. Aristotle quotes Phocylides: “Many things are best in the mean; I desire to be of a middle condition in my city” (4.11). The Golden Mean, according to Aristotle, could help us understand what the excellent or virtuous state would look like. In fact, this concept may be more useful in politics than in individual ethics. Here I will demonstrate this briefly from Aristotle’s Politics, applying it to a variety of political issues along the way.
The basic question Aristotle sets forth for himself in Politics is this: “Our purpose is to consider what form of political community is best of all for those who are most able to realize their ideal of life” (2.1). In other words, what is the best possible state?
Aristotle begins his discussion in the abstract. However, he recognizes that the ideal is not likely to be possible. So, he says, we ought to
inquire what is the best constitution for most states, and the best life for most men, neither assuming a standard of excellence which is above ordinary persons, nor an education which is exceptionally favoured by nature and circumstances, nor yet an ideal state which is an aspiration only, but having regard to the life in which the majority are able to share, and to the form of government which states in general can attain (4.11).
Aristotle wants us to consider what is really going to work best for most people. This is important to ask because “political writers, although they have excellent ideas, are often unpractical” (4.1). Continue reading “Aristotle’s Politics: The Politics of the Golden Mean”
How do we become what God has made us to become? Can we become what we are supposed to become? Can we fulfill our potential? Can we become joyful, content, and just people instead of angry, frustrated, and selfish people?
How would Adam and Abraham commune with God? There is a difference between the two in that Adam began as a creature unfallen into sin and Abraham was a sinful man. There is a similarity, however, in that both of them had limited amounts of special revelation. In other words, they didn’t have a large book (the Bible) to serve as the basis of communion with God. So, how did they commune with God?