Alot has been said in philosophy about avoiding extremes, finding the center and so on. My question is this:
If you only strive for the center, or to be moderate, how can you ever know truly what the limits of opposing extremes are? Without knowing them then how can you even locate the center in the first place? You might think you’re moderate, but really be leaning to the left or right because you’re not familiar with the extent of the spectrum in both directions.
Doesn’t it seem like a much better idea to strive towards extremism in every possible way? Then you’d at least know the range, and if you wanted to find the center you’d at least have some kind of chance.
Anyone who wants to defend a view that striving for extremism is bad go for it. I’d love to see what people think about this.
I great lacking to the right can only be cured by an extreme adding from the left.
It is moderate temporature for us on the earth, but the sun must exist at an extreme heat before we can have a mild summer’s day.
There is a difference between an extreme potency and a non-propriety.
Harmony is a mix of medium, weak and strong self-complimentary forces.
Eventually quantification means nothing once its understanding is transcended and an insight into harmony/propriety is gained beyond that.
Any degree of anything at any time can be good or bad, depending on the situational system, and also, it gets even more deep/complex when we take time into consideration, for sometimes a certian bad in the passed could lead to much good later, or, a little bit of improper goodness in the passed leads to a huge future abuse.
I’m just saying that if you want to be an average joe, then you first need to live like mother teresa, or try as hard as you can to, and then live like hitler as best you can. That way you know what NOT to do if you want to be centered.
I don’t think anyone’s striving for it, I think when they are mesured and quantified, there is a median, that’s the center.
Politics polaraizes the issues by finding topics that just so happen to resonate roughly equally, and they take one side and run with it. This gives them the ability to differentiate their position from the competition (just as we do in marketing, or in social circles, etc. all about game tactics). So, the “extreme” view is used specifically to help win the competition, but it is not necessarily related to what “most people want”.
So, in these cases, it’s not “good” to strive for moderate or the middle, or the extremes. Something should be good to strive for based on something other than the statistical position it results in, when we’re talking individuals.
Now, for government, why should it not function to serve the majority, but also while recognizing certain laws and minority rights? If the majority is moderate, I see no argument to be made that it’s better to serve the extremes. That’s anti-democractic (and common unfortunately).
The statement of saying to someone to always be in balance with the world is someone elses cheap idealism with their moral criticisms coming in afterwards but to go out onto the extremes because your own passions motivate yourself to do so is a situation where one meets their highest end in transcending it.
I’m thinking about a lady I know who has PhDs in philosophy and chemistry. Alot of times you think of humanities and natural sciences as being opposed or at least most people tend to lean toward one or the other. Getting terminal degrees in both is the sort of thing that I’m thinking about. Imagine how a person like that must think about everyday things.