The Theory of Moderation
In the shower today I was thinking about the virtues of moderation as a religion. Moderation as a window through which you view all of life, a directing metaphysical principle, a trustworthy guide in any situation. It started when I thought about how, growing up, I felt separated from the rest of my peers since my parents held and enforced views that were so entirely different than those of my classmates. Therefore, a divide was created between my friends and I, and I felt like I was “abnormal.” Even if my parent’s view were, in essence, right, it might have been better (according to my Theory of Moderation) that they take a more lenient position which recognized more than one viewpoint and would have been more permissive. The main idea here is that taking the middle-ground is the key to living a healthy life. We see it evidenced in food intake, in fun, in pleasure, and even in relationships, where both excess and abnegation lead to problems. But if you can find a balance, that is where you a truly happy. I believe the universe in itself shows us the need for a balance, because it is completely balanced in and of itself. As humans, we are fallen and do not realize this balance that exists everywhere around us, yet some find it in some areas. The goal of life is to find balance and moderation in all areas. Like Paul the Apostle said, everything is permissible. It is up to us to find out the direct actions we should take to achieve balance. What should be our guide? It is my theory that society naturally organizes itself into polar opposites. For example, conservative and liberal, and all the other ideologies that pervade
I am starting to realize that I might not be totally right in my passionate views of libertarianism. Although most of my concepts make sense, the way they are actually applied in real life might be different. I am starting to see that in politics, extremes are bad. The only way for a system to work is for it to take different parts of different viewpoints and balance them. It is not wrong to advocate a system that leans more towards one radical viewpoint. However, it is wrong to believe that a system would be “perfect” if it existed under the terms of that viewpoint. Nothing will ever be perfect. The closest we can humanly come to perfect is through moderation.
What worldview can best lead me to my goal of moderation? Could it be Buddhism, or one of the eastern trains of thought? Or could it be traditional Christianity from Jesus’ perspective? Jesus was certainly a man who taught moderation.
The virtue of moderation, in my opinion, is unquestionable. In my theory, I am not saying that everything is relative. It is perfectly fine to explain and defend your view. I just think the explanation for the view of moderation is much better than the explanations of any two opposing viewpoints respectively.
Am I being radical in this claim? Do I practice radical moderation? No. It is important to distinguish between radical moderation and moderate moderation. I try to practice a moderation that pervades my life, yet I recognize the aptitude for failure that exists in all humans and I understand that moderation must sometimes be interpreted and viewed in terms of one’s society or one’s religion. However, my point is, if all of these things did not exist (society, organized religion, etc.) MODERATION would still be a driving, tangible principle by which one could live life. Therefore, I consider it to be a foundational principle and an important one to consider.
1 comments:
Political ideology is not about perfection in the way that you describe it. No political ideology can ensure pleasurable conditions for everybody. It's a matter of morality. How SHOULD we treat people.
If we attempt to ensure that people are treated in an equal, just manner under the law, how could could it not be "perfection".
The means of justice and equality for all ensure that the ends are "perfect" regardless of whether the outcome is favorable for each individual.
Post a Comment