When someone is "extreme", in whatever direction; then appeals to be moderate, to take a "middle path", are futile.
Think about it: there are an infinite number of possible points between extremes. On what principle should we choose that point at which we are moderate? Presumably it isn't always necessarily half-way between extremes - but even if it was, what does that actually mean?
Some kind of dilution of each extreme, somehow combined? Or some kind of 50:50 alternation between the extremes? Or what?
In practice, the appeal for moderation is a negative recognition that neither option on-offer (by "extremists" is desirable - but no alternative principle is being suggested.
The appeal to moderation is therefore an acceptance of the theoretical framework of the extremes; which is why it is always futile.
And why - insofar as anyone really is motivated by moderation: their motivation is always weak. (There is no such thing as "a courageous moderate".)
So long as the theoretical framework is intact, then the extremes will carry the greatest authority - and no matter how well-motivated, moderation will be understood as an unprincipled and incoherent, hence feeble and pragmatic, compromise.
The real answer is never moderation or a middle way - but some higher principle; some framework that stands above, transcends, and contains the world-views of the extremes.
3 comments:
Similarly, the archer does not correct his shot by aiming lower or higher, more to the left or to the right, but by aiming truer. Moderation more closely resembles the decision making of a democracy or bureaucracy.
@Sean - Indeed. Errors cannot (legitimately) be assumed to be random - errors are nearly always systematic: for reasons. Therefore averaging errors leads only to averaged error - not the right answer.
The call for moderation could be regarded as an invitation to understand and learn -- Because the usual situation is that both extremes are obviously wrong, and moderation is futile - which means (if we learn the lesson) we are being given a basically False construction on reality.
Post a Comment