Philosophy Discussion Forums

I am writing this thread with a view to how it applies to ethics, and possibly ethics. However, it is also applicable to the philosophy of religion. That is because ethics is bound up with thinking about ultimate reality and how this related to moral and practical concerns.

Generally, I see the idea of 'the middle way' as a symbolic framework for thinking beyond ideas of moral perfectionism. It is also about balance, going beyond extremes. This may apply to issues of personal morality to those connected with political ethics. My query about the usefulness of the idea is that it could result in a watered down form of avoiding extremes. So , I am asking about the concept and to what extent is it useful philosophically?

Personally, I find that centrism is essential for one to sincerely engage in philosophical musing. To me, the point is to get in touch with actual reality as mush as possible. Others see philosophy as a means towards improving self and/or society. Personally, I find that too much focus on self-improvement creates instability, and that ideas regarding societal improvement tend to be naively imagine that 1) humanity as a whole is in control of what it does and 2) utopia is possible for heterotrophs.

I think you are correct Sy Borg. We humans are not in control of ourselves individually, much less as a whole, and so we cannot create a utopia. We cannot escape the ouroboros unless we become techno-autotrophs. And we cannot much change the way we treat each other until we can override the dark side of our evolved human nature. "Moderation in all things" and the "middle way" are sensible approaches to life but impossible to practice for most people. I try to eat as little meat as possible but I am allergic to soy and peanuts so I need to eat some animal based protein - mostly fish and chicken. And millions of people are so poor they have to eat whatever they can get, however they can get it. Like carnivorous non-human animals they have no choice at all. Maybe the best those of us who have the luxury of thinking about it can do is to try to cause as little suffering to other sentient beings as possible. Including to out fellow humans.

I agree with you both, especially Sy Borg's idea that being in touch with 'reality' is important. In some traditions goodness as a state of being has emphasised as a personal attribute or goal as opposed to effects. This is particularly true of deontological forms of ethics, such as Kant's approach. Of course, his idea of the categorical imperative does focus on results of action primarily.

Generally, religious and spiritual traditions seem to focus on virtue more than secular ones. That is often related to the value placed on moral perfection, such as the ideal of the saint. It is also connected to the goal of salvation.

Jack, as you say, it's about balance. For instance, as regards freedom and control, entropy and order. Too much of the former is anarchy and devolves into feudalism, and too of the latter is authoritarianism, which devolves into totalitarianism.

Everything in reality hinges on balance points.

Finding balance is complex though. That is because life involves very intricate aspects, with no easy solutions. One book which I have found is, 'The Wisdom of Imperfection', by Rob Preece. He argues that the experience of making mistakes is an important learning curve. He links Bufdhism with Jung's process of individuation. This involves the encounter with the shadow, or repressed and suppressed side of human nature.

I am certainly aware of my own shadow and the difficulty of integrating it. I remember one time I got drunk and was amazed when the man in the next room said to me that he was scared of me when I was drunk. I don't think I was unpleasant in how I behaved towards him. I was simply in a depressed mood but what he glimpsed must of unnerved him. I think that he was overreacting and probably judgmental about alcohol. However, my demeanour must have appeared different, as he told me that I seemed like I was on the moon. This reminded me of The Pink Floyd song, 'The Dark Side of the Moon'. I understand that the song is about mental illness, which is about imbalance. It is about the encounter with irrationality. It involves the confrontation with the personal apocalypse, or what some have spoken about as 'the dark night of the soul'.

Jung's book 'Answer to Job' is what I regard as his most interesting one. He looks at the way in which there has been a repression of the shadow in the Judaeo-Christiani tradition (and this would apply to Abrahamic religions in general). He sees the shadow as the problem of evil, in the capacity for human destruction. He pointed to nuclear warfare as this. He was writing in the middle of the last century and the present time is a very dark one, as some suggest we are on the brink of Thirs World War 3.

Having a shadow is inevitable. If we didn't have a shadow, we would be perfect and perfection and life do not mix. I think of perfection as crystallisation, highly ordered and (relatively) unchanging. But we squishy, organic beings are relentlessly dynamic, even for a time beyond death.

To be dynamic, is to explore existence in time. There will be shadows a light, valleys and hills and so on, all manner of variants. We lie forms generally aim to keep things fairly steady and cooperative, but we know that in time entropy gets us all. It's pretty easy to feel a tad "shadowy" with that realisation, although life (as they say) may find a way. A way to what? To peace and relative perfection, but without ossification. Grace.

JackDaydream wrote: ↑December 16th, 2024, 2:04 pm I am writing this thread with a view to how it applies to ethics, and possibly ethics. However, it is also applicable to the philosophy of religion. That is because ethics is bound up with thinking about ultimate reality and how this related to moral and practical concerns.

Generally, I see the idea of 'the middle way' as a symbolic framework for thinking beyond ideas of moral perfectionism. It is also about balance, going beyond extremes. This may apply to issues of personal morality to those connected with political ethics. My query about the usefulness of the idea is that it could result in a watered down form of avoiding extremes. So , I am asking about the concept and to what extent is it useful philosophically?

It's a kind of rule of thumb, and as such, it is useful and valuable, as Occam's Razor is too. As long as we remember it's a rule of thumb, not a law, it all works fine. So yes, let's avoid extremes wherever possible.

To Sy Borg,
Yes, it is interesting to think what it would be like to have no shadow side, or whether this is even possible. Even the concept of perfection has a shadow in the form of self righteousness. With human nature, there is the role of the ego which may be a stumbling block.

With all the emphasis on AI there is the question as to whether it will eliminate the problem of ego. It may come up with perfection in terms of rational objectivity. However, I am sure that it will have a shadow side. One example of this which I read about is in its use in detecting fraud, it seems to target marginalised groups more. Bias may be inevitable in all systems and I wonder whether computers and artificial minds are able to embrace the concept of the middle way, just as it is questionable whether they are able to be able to incorporate the value of compassion.

To Pattern-chaser,
The biggest problem is finding the 'middle way', because it involves the weighing of so many factors. I wonder if the Biblical idea of the 'narrow path' may be about this process too, because there are no easy solutions. Also, when one extreme has been reached there may need to be some extremes to restore balance. There are no one-size fits for all situations. Even the Kantian view of the categorical imperative may be too abstract, because it avoids the nature of specifics in favour of the universal. The Christian idea of loving one's neighbour as oneself may seem a good principle. However, the problem is that a person has many neighbours rather than simply one, so there has to be a balancing aspect in priorities.

JackDaydream wrote: ↑December 16th, 2024, 2:04 pm I am writing this thread with a view to how it applies to ethics, and possibly ethics. However, it is also applicable to the philosophy of religion. That is because ethics is bound up with thinking about ultimate reality and how this related to moral and practical concerns.

Generally, I see the idea of 'the middle way' as a symbolic framework for thinking beyond ideas of moral perfectionism. It is also about balance, going beyond extremes. This may apply to issues of personal morality to those connected with political ethics. My query about the usefulness of the idea is that it could result in a watered down form of avoiding extremes. So , I am asking about the concept and to what extent is it useful philosophically?

A quick google tells me that Buddhist Middle Way thinking has two strands wiki -

Majjhimāpaṭipadā; Sanskrit: Madhyamāpratipada) as well as "teaching the Dharma by the middle" (majjhena dhammaṃ deseti) are common Buddhist terms used to refer to two major aspects of the Dharma, that is, the teaching of the Buddha.[1][note 1] The first phrasing (with "paṭipadā") refers to a spiritual practice that steers clear of both extreme asceticism and sensual indulgence. This spiritual path is defined as the Noble Eightfold Path that leads to awakening.

I'd say avoiding over-indulgence and over-asceticism is sensible basic lifestyle advice. As for it being inherently 'spiritual', that seems like a stretch.

The second formulation refers to how the Buddha's Dharma (Teaching) approaches ontological issues of existence and personal identity by avoiding eternalism (or absolutism) and annihilationism (and nihilism).

This is trickier. It's hard to imagine a Middle Way between the self existing eternally and existing finitely. It seem to be more contentiously interpreted in different Buddhist sects, perhaps because it looks like a paradoxical claim, or reincarnation is contentious, dunno. Anyway my take is we're probably mortal 'selves', there is no middle ground.

I don't see a strong link to moral perfectionism here myself, that would need some elucidation?

The watered down question of avoiding extremes as more than a lifestyle choice doesn't really capture what Buddha was getting at, at a superficial dipped toe reading.

But I get your inference that it could be analagously taken as a framing tending towards Virtue Ethics, or 'enlightened deontology' as a centring of ethics on one's perfect enlightened self. As opposed to consequentialism, at least.

But I'm a consequentialist, which means you have to face the impossibility of moral perfection. And settlefor trying to do better, which is tough enough for many of us!

And as a consequentialist with a foundation rooted in the wellbeing of conscious creatures, I'd say some situations require more or less extreme action than others. The same goes for politics. It's not ethical in my framework for a 'centrist' to effectively support an immoral status quo. Or for an 'extremist' to take radical action on principle which ends up causing more harm. (Of course these terms are themselves relative and contextualised by societal norms)

There is a real practical issue about how to best address personal or political moral issues, but the issue of extreme or moderate action being 'more moral' is down to what the issue is. If a toddler is drowning in a pond you ought to radically change that circumstance and rescue the child. If the toddler wants unhealthy treats for every meal, you might indulge them now and then, and find veggies which appeal more. Horses for courses.

JackDaydream wrote: ↑December 21st, 2024, 1:46 pm To Pattern-chaser,
The biggest problem is finding the 'middle way', because it involves the weighing of so many factors. I wonder if the Biblical idea of the 'narrow path' may be about this process too, because there are no easy solutions. Also, when one extreme has been reached there may need to be some extremes to restore balance. There are no one-size fits for all situations. Even the Kantian view of the categorical imperative may be too abstract, because it avoids the nature of specifics in favour of the universal. The Christian idea of loving one's neighbour as oneself may seem a good principle. However, the problem is that a person has many neighbours rather than simply one, so there has to be a balancing aspect in priorities.

It's difficult to be specific about extremes, as there can be so many types of extreme, and so many ways in which 'extremes' can be approached or found. But, in general, as discussions of the Middle Way are also so general, extremes are usually best avoided. IMO, of course.