"Zhongyong" and "The Middle is Evil"

• Zhongyong

  • A classical assertion that emphasizes the importance of moderation.
  • https://kotobank.jp/word/中庸-97476
    • Derived from Aristotle:

      • ③ The central concept of Aristotle’s virtue theory. It means to control desires and actions with reason and to maintain a correct middle ground between excess and deficiency. For example, courage is considered to be the middle ground between cowardice and recklessness, based on careful consideration of specific circumstances using reason.

    • Derived from Confucianism:

      • Zhongyong is the impartial and balanced principle that avoids excess and deficiency, and is the natural essence bestowed upon humans based on the principles of heaven. By following one’s natural essence and cultivating self-reflection, one can achieve harmony and balance between joy, anger, sorrow, and pleasure, allowing for the harmonious coexistence of humans and nature. Although there have been different interpretations of the concept of natural essence and cultivation in later years, the importance of the book “Zhongyong” in Confucian teachings remains unchanged.

  • It makes sense to me (blu3mo)
    • It has a strong influence from both Aristotle and Confucianism, very classical.

• The Middle is Evil

  • Example: /nishio/Strategy of pursuing both classics and the latest for antifragility
  • This also makes sense (blu3mo)

• Although both make sense, I was wondering how the two can be reconciled (or not).

  • Convex and Concave Dispositions
  • Convex and Concave Dispositions from /tkgshn/凸型処分と凹型処分

    • Given a choice between two alternatives, often both expressed as deep principled philosophies, do you naturally gravitate toward the idea that one of the two paths should be correct and we should stick to it, or do you prefer to find a way in the middle between the two extremes?

    • This is exactly it.
    • 
    • Looking at the contradiction between “Zhongyong” and “The Middle is Evil” from different perspectives, we can reach different conclusions, haha.
      • Zhongyong supporters: “The opposing philosophy probably has some value too, so we should try to combine the best parts of both, and definitely avoid doing things that the opposing philosophy considers to be extremely terrible, just in case.”
      • The Middle is Evil supporters: “Whether we’re following this philosophy or that philosophy, we should be following some philosophy and just stick to it. Making a wishy-washy mix of everything doesn’t make sense.”
      • These are interesting (blu3mo)
    • Furthermore, the evaluation axis is multidimensional.

      • The world has more than one dimension.

      • That’s so true (blu3mo)
    • The conclusion is that we should take a moderate position regarding the contradiction between “Zhongyong” and “The Middle is Evil.”
      • Because the world has both concave and convex evaluation axes.
      • 
    • That’s so true (blu3mo)
      • They present a model of the world that is convincing and I think it’s great.
      • It’s clear and satisfying.