This is the second of two (humorous) episodes on moderation in terms of common experiences, the Sun, the Moon, and political philosophy in the East and the West.
Philosophy: Moderation
Chris J. deGrazia
2020/06/23, 2020/06/24, 2020/07/07, 2020/07/11, 2020/07/30, 2020/07/31a-g, 2020/08/01a-2020/08/02a, 2020/08/03a-d
Philosophy: Moderation—Part A.
[Before listening to this article, you might listen to the article called Philosophy: Limits.]
That preceding article started with this (joking) suggestion:
Let’s wake up in the middle of the night and make some coffee. Let’s forget to drink the coffee. Let’s take off our pajamas, forget to put on our daytime pants, go outside, and watch the Sun rise.
Thought Experiment 0.3: If you imagined following that suggestion, did you enjoy the idea of breaking the rules? Although you might respect some rules (including laws) as appropriate or necessary, is your respect for rules and their limits limited by some resentment or disagreement?
The preceding article on limits tried to observe the nature of natural things (including humans) and make some guesses about how things work. The last guess was this one:
Guessed Rule 4: Everything has its own (natural) limits.
Thus, somehow both the Sun and the Moon leave us but keep coming back. Also, the banana peel (which you threw at the Sun), your favorite girlfriend’s purse (which you threw at the Moon), and all of your 27 original girlfriends went away but stayed within their own particular limits.
Extra-Credit Question 5: What else can we learn about limits?
You might have heard the story of Icarus. One of the myths of ancient Greece, it’s something like this:1
Long ago, Icarus and his father Daedalus were trapped by King Minos in a tower above the king’s palace.
To escape, Daedalus used wax to stick feathers onto sticks and make wings for himself and Icarus. Daedalus warned Icarus not to fly too high, because the Sun would melt the wax. Daedalus also warned him not to fly too low, because the water of the sea would make the feathers wet.
Daedalus and Icarus flew away from their prison. Icarus flew higher and higher in the sky. He got too close to the Sun, its heat melted the wax, his wings fell apart, and he fell into the sea and died.
Extra-Credit Question 6: What does the story of Icarus tell us about limits?
It’s easy to see that Icarus ignored the limits of both himself and the wings and so died.
Like the exciting experiments that we imagined in the preceding article on limits, the story of Icarus illustrates the nature of limits. More, the story of Icarus illustrates this aspect of that nature:
Guessed Rule 5: It’s dangerous for a person to exceed his or her limits.
Icarus’s flying too close to the Sun was going beyond his limits and into the realm of too much, that is, the realm of excess. Thus, we might explain the rule in another way:
Guessed Rule 6: It’s dangerous for a person to be excessive.
Your Objection 1: But what about the experiment of opening my favorite girlfriend’s purse and throwing it at the Moon? Do you really call that dangerous?
My Explanation 1: You have a good point: No one died or got hurt. Wait: Maybe someone did get hurt. Your girlfriend got angry at you. So, it’s likely that both of you felt some hurt. Maybe a word like harmful would help.
Thought Experiment 0.7: Now that we’re testing the limits of our meaning of the word dangerous, should we expand it further?
When you opened your favorite girlfriend’s purse and threw it at the Moon, many of the items that it had held together flew beyond the limits of the purse, flew apart in the air, and landed in various places on the ground. That scattering of her items meant that you had to spend much time and effort into gathering them, cleaning them, and putting them back into the purse, so that she would stop yelling at you. We can say that much of your time and energy was destroyed because you made her purse and its contents exceed their limits.
So, we might not only clarify our rules by talking about harm but also simplify them even more by not limiting them to humans:
Guessed Rule 7: Excess can be harmful and thus is dangerous.
Thought Experiment 1: Change the story of Icarus so that—instead of flying too high—he was flying too low.
In that case, it’s likely that Daedalus would have been right again: Icarus, flying too low, would reach the sea’s water, which would wet the feathers, make his wings too heavy to flap, stop his flight, and make him fall into the sea and drown.
Question 1: Does this new story fit Guessed Rules 5–7 well?
Answer 1: Yes: Icarus exceeded his limits and so died.
Thought Experiment 1.b: Does that answer satisfy you? (If not, are there limits to the good in that answer?)
Let’s try to answer Question 1 better.
Answer 1.b: Yes and No: Although the story involves exceeding one’s limits, we usually think of excess as going too far (or having or doing too much). Thus, in the original story of Icarus, he flew so high toward the Sun that he had too much height. Because he was too close to the Sun, he also had too much heat. However, in Thought Experiment 1, it might be more accurate to say that Icarus’s mistake was not in going too high—but in going too low.
Question 2: What does the story of Icarus tell us about limits and excess?
Answer 2: The story shows us two limits: One is the upper limit, beyond which is an area of too much (what we normally call excess). The other is the lower limit, beyond which is an area of too little (what we might call deficiency). (Between those two limits is an area of neither too much nor too little, which we might consider the middle and sometimes call the norm.)
Question 2.b: What do too much and too little have in common?
Answer 2.b: Each is beyond a limit and thus in an area of what people sometimes call extremes.
Thought Experiment 1.b.2: Let’s think again about the Moon.
[Next, you might first walk up some stairs and second listen to the article called Philosophy: Moderation—Part B.]
Philosophy: Moderation—Part B.
[Before listening to this article, you might first listen to the article Philosophy: Moderation—Part A and second walk down some stairs.]
The preceding article ended with Thought Experiment 1.b.2: Let’s think again about the Moon.
Something makes the Moon return to us daily. That force preventsit from flying too far away from us, so far away that it would not return. That would be harmful and bad for at least two reasons: First, animals and people who hunt for food at night wouldn’t be able to see by moonlight. Second, people who hunt for girlfriends at night wouldn’t be able to read poetry to them by moonlight.
Thought Experiment 1.c: Having noticed in our experiments how the banana peel and your favorite girlfriend’s purse flew away but then flew back toward the Earth, try to guess what force is pulling things toward the Earth. You might wonder about this while walking up the stairs to the home of your girlfriend, the one who lives on the eighth floor.
Question 3: What pulls things toward the Earth?
Remember that a few years ago, when you actually did slip on a banana peel, you fell to the ground and noticed that the end of the process wasn’t pleasant. And recently, after you opened your favorite girlfriend’s purse and threw it at the Moon, she made you gather everything into her purse and then tripped you, so that you fell to the ground, and the end of that process too was unpleasant. Remember that after each of those adventures, you asked your mother, father, older brother, best friend, or teacher why Mother Nature had punished you for such a little mistake. And the answer was something like this: You had violated the law of gravity.
So, we can guess the following answer to Question 3:
Answer 3: The thing that pulls things toward the Earth is a physical force of attraction that we call gravity.
If the law of gravity also prevents the Moon from going too far away, then we could say that the law of gravity is moderating the Moon.
Helping something avoid extremes can be called moderation.
Thus, the cases of the Moon, the banana peel, and the purse can all be explained by the law of gravity and its moderation.
But what about the case of your 27 original girlfriends? We might guess that the return of 22 of them was due to their feeling toward you a social force of attraction, largely because of your brilliant experiments. Those 5 who didn’t return to you were still held within a certain distance from you (the diameter of the Earth), likely because (like you) they felt toward the Earth a physical force of attraction. Thus, we could say that the distance of your original 27 girlfriends was moderated by both the social force of attraction to you and the physical force of attraction to the Earth.
Someone’s Objection 2: Their distance wasn’t the only thing that was moderated. Their attraction was moderated by their negative feelings and high intelligence.
My Explanation 2: Ha, ha. You might be right about that.
Someone Else’s Objection 3: Yeah. And the number of girlfriends decreased. What do you say about that?
My Explanation 3: We might guess that the number of your original girlfriends—27—was somewhat excessive (being somewhat higher than the usual number of 7) and that that social excess led to some kinds of harm: not only their misfortunes—which include (but might not be limited to) the feelings of jealousy, anger, and other negative emotions—but also your own misfortunes—which include (but might not be limited to) your losing many of those original 27 girlfriends. We might say that the high intelligence of the original 27 girlfriends and the displeasure that they felt about your having a somewhat high number of girlfriends moderated that number of girlfriends.
Thought Experiment 2: Is your respect for moderation limited, moderate, or both?
Moderation has been respected for thousands of years and in both the East and the West.
Thus, in the East, about 600-500 BC, the (perhaps legendary) philosopher Lao Tzu wrote the Tao te Ching.2
(Lao Tzu is also known as Lao-Tze,3 Laozi,2 Li Er, Lao Jun, Tai Shang Lao-Jun, Tai Shang Xuanyuan Huangdi, Lao Dun, and Lao Dan.4 The Tao te Ching is also known as the Tao Teh King,3Tao and its Characteristics, the Classic of the Way of Power, the Daodejing, and the Laozi.2,5)
In the Tao te Ching, Lao Tzu said, “For regulating the human (in our constitution) and rendering the (proper) service to the heavenly, there is nothing like moderation.” He added, “It is only by this moderation that there is effected an early return (to man's normal state).”3
Also, in the West, about 375 BC, the ancient Greek philosopher Plato wrote The Republic.6,7 In that dialogue, Plato wrote that Socrates (his teacher), said this:8
“Moderation,” I said, “is surely a certain kind of order and mastery of certain kinds of pleasures and desires, as men say when they use—I don’t know in what way—the phrase ‘stronger than himself’; and some other phrases of the sort are used that are, as it were, its tracks.”
Plato added that “moderation is like a kind of harmony.”9
Regarding the “city” (which is a state, more or less), Plato wrote10 that Socrates said, “I suppose our city—if, that is, it has been correctly founded—is perfectly good.”
Socrates added, “Plainly, then, it’s wise, courageous, moderate and just.”
Thus, with these and other words, Plato implied that moderation is a primary virtue of both the individual human and the state.
Thought Experiment 3: Does moderation deserve your respect to a degree that’s extreme?
Regardless of whether you live in the East or the West, if your government and its officers are moderated by limits, then it seems likely that you are fortunate.
Thus, if you live in a republic, it’s likely that its constitution moderates the state to arrange and limit the powers of individuals and groups and thereby promote good government. For example, in the United States, the U.S. Constitution—the highest law—arranges and limits the powers of each of the three branches (the executive, legislative, and judicial branches) of the government by principles such as that of the separation of powers and that of checks and balances. So each branch may not act without the agreement of the others and is otherwise deterred from having too much power. Accordingly, no officer in the government may act independently or otherwise exceed his or her limits. For example, the powers of the head of the executive branch, the president, are so moderated by the limits of the constitution and the laws that follow it well that he or she is deterred from acting immoderately, should not act immoderately, and should not become a tyrant. More, while the president obeys and fully respects the constitution, he or she cannot become a tyrant.
Thus, it seems likely that for republics and other states with limits that moderate power well—and for their peoples—such limits and moderation are fortunate.
Thought Experiment 4: Have the limits of your respect for moderation changed?
Notes: