Continuing the discussion from Curiosity – Caffeine Is Bad:
I’ve been reading some Aristotle as part of an IRL philosophy reading group. Not a huge fan so far tbh. This Peikoff lecture covers some of the material I’m reading right now. I thought Peikoff’s criticisms of the Golden Mean were good. I took a few notes on that part of the lecture (below).
- The trinity of attitudes which Aristotle ranges on a continuum do not fall on a continuum at all. The vices are differentiated from the virtues in kind, not just in degree, as Aristotle's doctrine requires.
- An obsequious social metaphysician and a rationally happy person are not differentiated by the former having more of the latter's attitude. There is a different in kind and not in degree.
- If it were just a difference in degree, there would be no argument in favor of the Mean. The mere fact that some attitude is in the middle, between two other attitudes, doesn't show that it's therefore desirable.
- Imagine never committing adultery as one extreme vs committing adultery every night (Aristotle gives adultery as an example). Aristotle says this type of case is already an extreme and therefore doctrine of mean doesn't apply. But how does Aristotle know they're extremes? He knew in advance, but he didn't get there by the doctrine of the mean.
- How do you know what the mean is in a particular case?
- Aristotle says he doesn't mean the arithmetic mean but the just right amount for a given person. But how do you know? Aristotle says that if you're well brought up and take all factors into account, you'll just know.