I can't confidently say what Aristotle would say. The following is my own understanding.
The basic idea is that when all of the incredibly complex context is taken into consideration (including the agent) there is an optimal move to take. A tool for identifying this move is to create a spectrum and feel out what is too hot and what is too cold. Having a scale and searching for the sweet spot is easier than just asking yourself "what should I do?"
So the assumption that the extremes are not the best course of action doesn't really exist. It's more like- we can almost always find an excess and deficiency in relation to the metric we are using. And we don't want those- rather the best action. This might sometimes be an 'extreme' in the sense that extreme joy would be an appropriate response to certain happenings. But there is most likely still an expression of joy that would be too much.
I don't find this sufficient to justify all the discussion of what the mean is.
I saw a different justification in book 4 of Plato's Laws (716c), which I once - before finding it in Plato - read into Maimonides' De'os chapter 1, end:
What conduct, then, is dear to God and in his steps? One kind of conduct, expressed in one ancient phrase, namely, that “like is dear to like” when it is moderate, whereas immoderate things are dear neither to one another nor to things moderate. In our eyes God will be “the measure of all things” in the highest degree—a degree much higher than is any “man” they talk of. He, then, that is to become dear to such an one must needs become, so far as he possibly can, of a like character.
I haven't gotten around to reading the Laws yet! It's on the list! Thanks for the quote.
I find this more rhetorical than logical. I notice that Aristotle doesn't really defend his claim. This leads me to think that he is not really trying to identify what exactly the mean is by use of the framework, but rather as a tautology (mean = what you should do). In which case the mean is a mental tool and not an objective mark. This doesn't work with your Laws quote, nor does it fit with Maimonides who says one should go to the extreme end in certain virtues. (According to me, he simply would have identified the extremes as the mean. Although this might have been a little confusing to do, so I'm not sure it's an absolute proof.)
Because the mean is not mathematical, the only way to really find it is by the combination of reflection and intuition.
That too leads me to think that we aren't dealing with a set category but a reflective tool for finding what is the best action.
I suppose this still won't answer your argument that based on my take there isn't much room for discussion of what the mean is. But I think it makes sense- the discussion is an example of the reflection and intuition one would use in their own specific circumstances.
I’ve heard Rav Lopiansky describing the perfect middle as combining characteristics of both extremes in an ideal way rather than finding an exact middle point. I wonder what your thoughts are.
I don't know exactly what he meant by that. Let's take a concrete example. A friend of mine is in trouble and comes to me to share his story. My emotoinal response (and I'm focusing on that part of my response and not on the subsequent action which is another aspect) should be somewhere between the extremes of compassion and pity to a state of complete paralysis, to coldhearted cruelty and indifference to his troubles.
Whatever the proper response is- it is a single action. I can't imagine being both extremely feeling and cold at the same time. And when I try to bend my logic and pretend I could imagine such a thing, it still doesn't seem like it's the best response.
Perhaps Rav Lopiansky was trying to say that one should have the capacity for all extremes. That would be reasonable. It makes sense to develop both the capacity for deep pity and for coldness so as to apply as needed. However, its worth considering if this is the appropriate step for acquiring virtue. I would suspect that the vast majority of people would be better off coming closer to the middle than expanding their capacities.
Thanks for the thought provoking comment. If you can send me the source, I'd love to see it inside.
What problem does finding the mean solve? Why is there an assumption that the extremes are not the best course of action?
I can't confidently say what Aristotle would say. The following is my own understanding.
The basic idea is that when all of the incredibly complex context is taken into consideration (including the agent) there is an optimal move to take. A tool for identifying this move is to create a spectrum and feel out what is too hot and what is too cold. Having a scale and searching for the sweet spot is easier than just asking yourself "what should I do?"
So the assumption that the extremes are not the best course of action doesn't really exist. It's more like- we can almost always find an excess and deficiency in relation to the metric we are using. And we don't want those- rather the best action. This might sometimes be an 'extreme' in the sense that extreme joy would be an appropriate response to certain happenings. But there is most likely still an expression of joy that would be too much.
Does this help?
I don't find this sufficient to justify all the discussion of what the mean is.
I saw a different justification in book 4 of Plato's Laws (716c), which I once - before finding it in Plato - read into Maimonides' De'os chapter 1, end:
What conduct, then, is dear to God and in his steps? One kind of conduct, expressed in one ancient phrase, namely, that “like is dear to like” when it is moderate, whereas immoderate things are dear neither to one another nor to things moderate. In our eyes God will be “the measure of all things” in the highest degree—a degree much higher than is any “man” they talk of. He, then, that is to become dear to such an one must needs become, so far as he possibly can, of a like character.
I haven't gotten around to reading the Laws yet! It's on the list! Thanks for the quote.
I find this more rhetorical than logical. I notice that Aristotle doesn't really defend his claim. This leads me to think that he is not really trying to identify what exactly the mean is by use of the framework, but rather as a tautology (mean = what you should do). In which case the mean is a mental tool and not an objective mark. This doesn't work with your Laws quote, nor does it fit with Maimonides who says one should go to the extreme end in certain virtues. (According to me, he simply would have identified the extremes as the mean. Although this might have been a little confusing to do, so I'm not sure it's an absolute proof.)
Because the mean is not mathematical, the only way to really find it is by the combination of reflection and intuition.
That too leads me to think that we aren't dealing with a set category but a reflective tool for finding what is the best action.
I suppose this still won't answer your argument that based on my take there isn't much room for discussion of what the mean is. But I think it makes sense- the discussion is an example of the reflection and intuition one would use in their own specific circumstances.
I’ve heard Rav Lopiansky describing the perfect middle as combining characteristics of both extremes in an ideal way rather than finding an exact middle point. I wonder what your thoughts are.
I don't know exactly what he meant by that. Let's take a concrete example. A friend of mine is in trouble and comes to me to share his story. My emotoinal response (and I'm focusing on that part of my response and not on the subsequent action which is another aspect) should be somewhere between the extremes of compassion and pity to a state of complete paralysis, to coldhearted cruelty and indifference to his troubles.
Whatever the proper response is- it is a single action. I can't imagine being both extremely feeling and cold at the same time. And when I try to bend my logic and pretend I could imagine such a thing, it still doesn't seem like it's the best response.
Perhaps Rav Lopiansky was trying to say that one should have the capacity for all extremes. That would be reasonable. It makes sense to develop both the capacity for deep pity and for coldness so as to apply as needed. However, its worth considering if this is the appropriate step for acquiring virtue. I would suspect that the vast majority of people would be better off coming closer to the middle than expanding their capacities.
Thanks for the thought provoking comment. If you can send me the source, I'd love to see it inside.