Dear Friends,
It seems to me, Aristotle’s and Mencius’ Golden Mean sound great, but I fundamentally disagree. I admit both men were far more intelligent and wise than I. Their brilliance is accepted across the planet. They lacked something that I have, however, and that something is perspective. They both lived around 330 BC. In practice, the Golden Mean should provide the best life outcome for any given civilization. That’s a valuable metric for gauging action. If the civilization you find yourself in is self-immolating, following the Golden Mean only reinforces that self-immolation. In this case following the Golden Mean is self-destructive. Moreover, how do we know following the Golden Mean is indeed the best course of action when taking into account civilizational trajectory?
Both philosophers’ Golden Mean is roughly defined as following the average morality of the civilization you find yourself in. On the face of it this seems pragmatic advice. Those who blend into a crowd are seldom targeted. That’s why Zebras have stripes, so they can’t be targeted. So the Golden Mean then is simply societal camouflage. Such people stay in the mainstream to keep hidden from predators. Those predators are usually the government and crazy Karens that enforce cultural norms. Even regular people often get offended when they feel discredited by superior worth. Similar negative fates await those who are below average in ethics. This means that on the level of the individual and in the moment, this is wise. If we account for our environment, the math changes drastically.
If you find yourself in Sodom and Gomorrah, following the Golden Mean is clearly self-destructive. You could characterize such cultures as self-immolating. Even if they are at the acme of prosperity, the trajectory is obvious to anyone with discernment. Discerning people also understand that the comforts they take for granted exist only because of society. If that society collapses, those comforts disappear and want replaces them. In a society that is self-immolating, following the Golden Mean is a sure path to disaster. It will result in catastrophe for oneself and everyone around them. The party on the deck of the Titanic may be epic but it is short lived. The Golden Mean then becomes a race to the bottom. Participating in such a race is delivering your children to disaster.
In a civilization that is in free fall but has not yet reached the Sodom level of perversion, following the Golden Mean contributes to that fall. In a herd of lemmings charging limestone cliffs, which one is the wise one? The lemming who stays in the middle of the crowd… or the one who veers off to safety? Moreover, the lemming that veers off to safety might get a few to follow. Leading by example is far more powerful than we realize. So in a civilization that is racing toward a cliff, the wise drop the Golden Mean and veer off to safety. In doing so they might save a few others by example. However, when we find ourselves in a civilization that is ascending, following the Golden Mean is wise and smart. The difficulty is in having the discernment to know when and when not to follow the Mean.
The question is, what’s the role of the individual? If it’s blind self-interest, then following the Golden Mean makes perfect sense. It keeps us in the mainstream of zebras. If, however, the role of the individual in a civilization is to maintain that civilization, then our obligation is to push in the direction that improves that civilization. We must model that which we want to see… not that which we see. This is because civilization isn’t a static thing we find ourselves in. It’s a dynamic thing we create moment by moment. If it was static, we would still be gutting geese to prognosticate. I imagine those who fled Pompeii at the first grumblings of Vesuvius were ridiculed as worry warts. Others followed their examples though, and were saved, because the Golden Mean is conditionally wise.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
