Lifestyle - Moderation versus Extremism: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Social Sciences » Lifestyle - Moderation versus Extremism » Lifestyle - Moderation versus Extremism

Your pick.
Easy does it.	Paul, Epilogas, moonlight, Mr.Anonymous, cygn	5	33%
Release your inhibitions.	EcceQuiTollisPeccataMundi, CypressMoon, 2gontaf2, Caldwell, Seneca, Ibrahim, JAC, Noddack, Benkei, alliop	10	67%
15 votes

Page: 1 2

Lifestyle - Moderation versus Extremism

hyena in petticoat
Cheeky Possum.

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Dec 14, 2006
Location: Here.
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 856

Posted 11/08/07 - 09:44 PM: Subject: Lifestyle - Moderation versus Extremism	#1
Okay...I may not be so eloquent as to how I will present this but I will try. The thought occurred to me just when I was falling asleep and I don't happen to have the burst of inspiration when I woke up to decently articulate this one out. I observed that people are inclined to advocate and practice a life of moderation. I believe that there are many factors resulting to such a mentality, some of which are: self discipline (desire for control?), desire for security and/ or stability, the tendency to always take into consideration the effects of our acts to other people or the society, fear of the unknown, etc. Such people perhaps have never experienced bliss nor heart wrenching pain and they believe this is good. They prefer being certain about things, avoiding risks, avoiding failure, avoiding disappointments and often in the process, missing incredible joy, outstanding achievements, an intense desire to break new grounds, explore new things, experience a wide variety of emotion. On the other hand, there are a handful of people who live life in extremes. Often, it's for personal gratification or satisfaction, often put as "living life at its best" or "living life to the fullest" or "making the most out of life", etc. Personally, I have respect for people who dare, who face life without fear, the ones who risk pain in order to see more, feel more. However, it is also with irony that I note that several people belonging to this handful had their life philosophy as their downfall. Their entire being spiraling downwards, irredeemable. But there are of course the great ones who are able to redeem themselves and get things back on track. Certainly, the downfalls are part of the "extremity". What I am saying is that there are just a few who recover. There are many who remained the failures they have become and get stuck in being that way. I am wondering, despite differences in applicability of either life philosophies to our personal lives, which of these are commendable in a general sense? Vaguely put, which is better? Which of these two makes a better person? I feel that there still aspects of this topic that I may have been unable to present and I feel that there is something I further want to say that I could not pin point at the moment. For the time being, care to share your thoughts on this? Edited by hyena in petticoat on 11/08/07 - 10:04 PM
_____________________ Running running run. If you can't say anything nice about someone, say nothing. Then creep up behind them with a baseball bat and really let 'em have it. "What's the point of goin' out and riding if you're gona be a pussy..." - Ecce

Caldwell
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Under the banana tree, with Zuleiha.
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1311

Posted 11/09/07 - 12:32 AM:	#2
I'm reminded. Risk-takers are born, according to psychology. Good post, hyena. On moderation -- I think some people who've experienced life's dramatic swings would also advocate a life of moderation. That is, if they've become wiser as a result. The time of the stoics had often seen Fortune at her best and worst. (At least this is what they believed). Wars, wealth, adventures, successes, and failures seem to have come in full force; so no wonder, these philosophers advocate moderation in life.
_____________________ So, you've finally figured out how reality works. Have a glass of muriatic acid, everyone.

hyena in petticoat
Cheeky Possum.

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Dec 14, 2006
Location: Here.
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 856

Posted 11/09/07 - 12:49 AM:	#3
Thanks Caldwell. Risk-takers are born? You mean literally? How did psychologists arrive in such a conclusion? Caldwell wrote: That is, if they've become wiser as a result. So, the ones who live life in moderation are the wise ones? On moderation -- I think some people who've experienced life's dramatic swings would also advocate a life of moderation. That is, if they've become wiser as a result. The time of the stoics had often seen Fortune at her best and worst. (At least this is what they believed). Wars, wealth, adventures, successes, and failures seem to have come in full force; so no wonder, these philosophers advocate moderation in life. Now, an interesting idea you introduced here. Living life in moderation after one has lived in extremes... I would have to ponder on this. Does this happen because some people think they have experienced everything or been through everything? Or is it because they thought it did them no good? Or could it be they got tired of taking risks and losing altogether? Now, what about the opposite, living a life of extremism after one has lived in moderation? They're supposed to be pretty content in such a state right? What drives them towards a change of heart?
_____________________ Running running run. If you can't say anything nice about someone, say nothing. Then creep up behind them with a baseball bat and really let 'em have it. "What's the point of goin' out and riding if you're gona be a pussy..." - Ecce

JB
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 03, 2003
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 389

Posted 11/09/07 - 11:35 AM:	#4
Hyena, great musing. There is a saying in the business world that goes something like this: Profits do not come from taking risks but from superior skill in managing risk. Since risk is inescapable in any aspect of life --- business, social, personal and so on --- much of what we are to be about, then, necessarily involves risk management. At the risk of oversimplification and misinterpretation, let me share a life strategy advocated by the great American pragmatist, Charles Sanders Peirce. I will just set forth what one might consider to be very general rules, otherwise subject to nuance and exception. First, let us draw a distinction between theoretical and prudential judgment. In theoretical judgment, which is to say in judgment that pertains to such as empirical and rational matters, we might do best to think radically, boldly, wildly, extravagantly, unrestrainedly, progressively, liberally and so on and so forth. In prudential judgment, which is to say in judgment that pertains to such as moral and practical matters, we might do best to move tentatively, hesitantly, conservatively, heedful of sentiment & sensibilities, mindful of tradition and so on and so forth. At the very least, Peirce would suggest that we adopt this latter set of more conservative attitudes, in accord with the accumulated experience of countless generations, when we are judging great issues of vital importance. (So, maybe on practical issues, of less vital importance, like going out for a sports team, asking a girl or guy out, taking up a new hobby, writing that novel and such, we should be bolder. On those like getting married, changing professions, moving to a new city, we should be less bold. Such prudentially-based life events might could be placed on boldness scales that vary mostly according to vital importance? and, to a lesser extent, by temperament?) One can read an excellent reflection on this here: The Conservative Pragmatism of Charles Peirce by Thomas Short; Modern Age Archive — Volume 43, Number 4; Fall 2001 All that said, I don't buy into too facile a distinction between the theoretical and the prudential, or the descriptive and the prescriptive, believing as I do that we can and do journey, intellectually, from the given to the normative, or, as they say, from an is to an ought. In my view, then, an inaccurate theoretical/descriptive take on reality will thus lead, inevitably, to an impoverished prudential/prescriptive approach to reality. When this happens, tradition is no virtue. I believe this is the problem, for example, in my own Catholic church, when it comes to sex and gender issues ... ... sigh You raise some good questions. Edited by JB on 11/09/07 - 01:12 PM
_____________________ Vuja De I've never been here before and I don't remember being any place like this either. Why go ad hominem when ad absurdum will do?

Floyd
Cool

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 16, 2003
Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1964

Last Blog: Poverty Book of the Day: The Support Economy

Posted 11/09/07 - 08:16 PM:	#5
I have a fortune from a fortune cookie taped on my computer monitor from a while back. I taped it there because I like it. It reads: "All things in moderation--even moderation." Generally speaking, I think most things in extremes become addictive and have a tendency to turn into obsessions. For example, the main problem with person who takes a whole lot of drugs or alcohol is not that he or she is intoxicated often; it's that they always want more, and they continue to increase their usage until it engulfs their entire life. It can go the same with most anything in too much of an extreme, from the corporate guy who takes his career too seriously to the overprotective parent who's extremely overbearing. When we go at things with too much extremity, we become too heavily invested, to the point of obsession and addiction. -Floyd
_____________________ Short and to the point. \| Online Philosophy Club \| Book & Reading Forums \| My Philosophy Articles "Only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness." ~Immanuel Kant

JB
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 03, 2003
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 389

Posted 11/09/07 - 09:00 PM:	#6
Floyd wrote: When we go at things with too much extremity, we become too heavily invested, to the point of obsession and addiction.-Floyd I have a little saying that, in part, goes like this: *To be engaged, but not obsessed; inspired, but not driven; spontaneous, but not compulsive* ...** Good thoughts, Floyd.
_____________________ Vuja De I've never been here before and I don't remember being any place like this either. Why go ad hominem when ad absurdum will do?

Caldwell
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Under the banana tree, with Zuleiha.
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1311

Posted 11/10/07 - 12:35 AM:	#7
hyena in petticoat wrote: Thanks Caldwell. Risk-takers are born? You mean literally? How did psychologists arrive in such a conclusion? Because they posit that whether a person is a risk-taker or not is a matter of personality, what one is born with. Which is to say, you cannot teach one to be. So, the ones who live life in moderation are the wise ones? Learning from their experience, yes. Now, an interesting idea you introduced here. Living life in moderation after one has lived in extremes... I would have to ponder on this. Does this happen because some people think they have experienced everything or been through everything? Or is it because they thought it did them no good? Or could it be they got tired of taking risks and losing altogether? Good questions. Quite the opposite. Those who've 'been there, done that' have come to know that all that time and effort spent chasing a life of high stakes may not be worth the end. Because what is really are we chasing? But material rewards, most often, if not always. They've seen how some things are beyond our control, and that there is always this great possibility of a big fall. All the while, we could be spending our time tending to the more important things in life -- family, friends, health, sanity sheepish, peace and tranquility. Now, what about the opposite, living a life of extremism after one has lived in moderation? They're supposed to be pretty content in such a state right? What drives them towards a change of heart? Boredom? I doubt that people actully go from a life of moderation to a life of extremes. They might look for a change of pace, which is not the same as taking extreme risks, but often they stay within their comfort level.
_____________________ So, you've finally figured out how reality works. Have a glass of muriatic acid, everyone.

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 5382

Posted 11/10/07 - 03:02 AM:	#8
Let me suggest that moderation may be the response to the fact of having dependents. Once the nest is empty, one may pursue more extreme activities without the worry that failure would have consequences for loved ones.
_____________________ Leave no assumption unquestioned.

180 Proof
Cult Deprogrammer

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: reason's raggedy edge
Total Topics: 73
Total Posts: 3530

Posted 11/10/07 - 02:56 PM: Subject: wu wei	#9
Moderation does not imply mediocrity. Preparation for / prevention of foreseeable extremes is what deliberate (i.e. prudent) moderation consists in. Aristotle called this phronesis; Spinoza called it amor dei intellectualis; Nietzsche amor fati; and Camus revolt. The ramifications of undisciplined "desire" (for ethics and politics) is the perennial aporia. Yes, moderation in all things -- even moderation.
_____________________ If faith is irrational, then it is rational to dismiss "faith-based claims" out of hand. If faith is rational, then "faith-based claims" must be testable and/or sufficient -- but they are neither. If faith is a-rational, then "faith-based claims" are inexplicable and thus cannot explain anything.

kkiiji
Overcome

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 364

Posted 11/10/07 - 03:57 PM:	#10
I think moderation does lead to a "lack of life" in some cases. Especially when one seeks to remain unchanged for comfort. In my opinion this limits life, limits the possibility of growth through self challenge, reduces one's purpose to waiting for death, reduces one's inspiration to none. On the other hand moderation is quite useful to avoid some earlier mentioned weaknesses such as the addiction to certain extremes. These addictions also hinder one's growth, since they are usually mindless extreme stimuli that serves to keep us occupied.

loui100
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 13, 2007
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 168

Posted 11/10/07 - 06:03 PM:	#11
I can be considerate or moderate in life and live a life that is full and rich at the same time. I don't need to jump into the abyss for the thrill, for instance, I can sit in the safety of my home and apply LSD or similar drugs/alcohol beverages that will induce the same effects without the physical risk of breaking my neck. Just an example of course. Basically speaking, we always have to take a risk, but we should try to limit the risk to the minimum, making short-term happiness an end but also making survival and long-term happiness the main determinant of the means.

hyena in petticoat
Cheeky Possum.

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Dec 14, 2006
Location: Here.
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 856

Posted 11/11/07 - 09:38 PM:	#12
Good points people. Thank you. Caldwell wrote: me wrote: So, the ones who live life in moderation are the wise ones? Learning from their experience, yes. I am almost done reading Herman Hesse's Siddharta and somewhere towards the end, the main character (Siddharta) came to wondering about why we give so much value to wisdom that we assume wise people as superior to the "non-wise" ones. Further, though I would agree to the logic behind preventing possible (negative) events that may very well be to the detriment of the person committing the act (similar to what Caldwell and 180 said), this is perhaps one of the objections towards moderation: it delimits. One may say as Caldwell puts it: "been there, done that". Such a mentality automatically assumes that an act would cause specific result always. So it kinda puts a "red light" towards further exploration. The thing about risk management, as I think JB hinted at, is that it somehow defeats the "essence" of taking risks altogether. rabeldin's point is pretty valid. But to live in extemism sometimes or often calls for drastic measures, for great sacrifices. Consideration about how other people wll be affected is, yes, characteristic of moderation. 'Total abandon' fits extremism better, in my opinion. Still pondering, Hyena
_____________________ Running running run. If you can't say anything nice about someone, say nothing. Then creep up behind them with a baseball bat and really let 'em have it. "What's the point of goin' out and riding if you're gona be a pussy..." - Ecce

Caldwell
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Under the banana tree, with Zuleiha.
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1311

Posted 11/12/07 - 12:04 AM:	#13
Did I say the dirty word? -- "wise"? Okay, let me rephrase. Actually, these people we tend to listen to, whether in books, in person, someone we know, have become, to our eyes, wise because there are evidence that show they are. I mean, we grant this unofficial title to them, as an acknowledgment of their sound advice. I don't really think we listen to just anybody. Certainly, a sound judgment comes from something -- nothing can come out of nothing. So, there is definitely a difference between someone who've experienced, studied, observed, and pondered something from someone who hasn't done any of these. I think it's fair to say, though I wouldn't use the word "superior", that the difference is a matter of sound advice. Anyway, I certainly cannot argue against Siddharta.
_____________________ So, you've finally figured out how reality works. Have a glass of muriatic acid, everyone.

hyena in petticoat
Cheeky Possum.

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Dec 14, 2006
Location: Here.
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 856

Posted 11/12/07 - 12:14 AM:	#14
Anyway, of course, I acknowledge the fact that there are reasons why some people are considered wise and why people listen to them or follow their priciples. However, the point in question poses things worth pondering no?
_____________________ Running running run. If you can't say anything nice about someone, say nothing. Then creep up behind them with a baseball bat and really let 'em have it. "What's the point of goin' out and riding if you're gona be a pussy..." - Ecce

JB
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 03, 2003
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 389

Posted 11/12/07 - 07:39 AM:	#15
hyena in petticoat wrote: The thing about risk management, as I think JB hinted at, is that it somehow defeats the "essence" of taking risks altogether. Interesting perspective. Yes, I was addressing risk for its extrinsic rewards, which is to say that I was approaching it only as a means to an end. Risk management, in that sense, is intended to enhance one's purposes, to optimize one's gains, by trying to limit, at the same time, any unintended consequences and by-products that might otherwise offset or even eradicate the desired end-product. That is how I would conceive the essence of risk within the context of risk-reward and cost-benefit analyses. However, Hyena, when you use the term "essence" of risk, it evokes another thought for me, which is that risk can also be intrinsically rewarding, not merely a means but also an end unto itself. For instance, it can provide --- in a word --- kicks. M-Webster: 5 b: a stimulating or pleasurable effect or experience c: pursuit of an absorbing or obsessive new interest
_____________________ Vuja De I've never been here before and I don't remember being any place like this either. Why go ad hominem when ad absurdum will do?

hyena in petticoat
Cheeky Possum.

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Dec 14, 2006
Location: Here.
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 856

Posted 11/12/07 - 11:28 PM:	#16
Good point JB. Further, I would also like to note that some people take risks for ends unknown. To do that is often considered crazy, insane, even illogical, stupid. Maybe as you say, they get the "kicks" in the process of risk taking, or maybe they are strongly drawn towards the infiniteness of possibilities. Or maybe both. I somewhat have the impression that extremist are regarded as people who do not "think", non-wise (I do not mean anything to imply towards you Caldwell. ). But do they really "not think"? Are they really "just" obssessed and incapable of control, reason and discipline? Edited by hyena in petticoat on 11/12/07 - 11:33 PM
_____________________ Running running run. If you can't say anything nice about someone, say nothing. Then creep up behind them with a baseball bat and really let 'em have it. "What's the point of goin' out and riding if you're gona be a pussy..." - Ecce

Caldwell
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Under the banana tree, with Zuleiha.
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1311

Posted 11/13/07 - 12:37 AM:	#17
hyena in petticoat wrote: I somewhat have the impression that extremist are regarded as people who do not "think", non-wise I thought extremism is a lifestyle. I certainly don't think they get that image of non-wise, just daring and bold. Perhaps, the only people who might get such remark are those who are couch-potatoes, or those who keep getting into trouble with the law. That's different from exremists or thrill seekers. Btw, thrill-seekers do it for that, feeling the thrill of taking the risk.
_____________________ So, you've finally figured out how reality works. Have a glass of muriatic acid, everyone.

PeeGee
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 05, 2003
Location: I am omnipresent
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 158

Posted 11/15/07 - 05:47 AM:	#18
There's an 'explanation' given for people who are into 'extreme' activities -- either that they are naturally required to experience heightened levels of adrenaline and other chemicals, or that one can be conditioned to find regular activities mundane and require extreme activities to feel normal (similar to how heroin addiction works). Without fleshing too much into the above paragraph, I find it more interesting that in both cases the behaviour of the 'norm' is treated as the good, while the extreme activities are treated like a minority or an exception to the rule.
_____________________ The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.

kkiiji
Overcome

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 364

Posted 11/19/07 - 10:35 PM:	#19
Doesn't the need for constant extreme stimuli seem like just a form of hedonism? Being dependent extreme events because of most likely a loss of purpose otherwise. This seems to be quite different from the ability to step out of one's comfort zone though.

unrealist42
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Location: City of Dreams
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 1941

Posted 11/20/07 - 02:10 PM:	#20
For many years I lived a life of extremes but now I live in moderation. Why? I think maybe because a life in the extreme lane, while very exciting and dangerous, takes its toll. Many of my erstwhile companions in the extreme life are dead, or physically, psycologically, ethically, and/or morally bankrupt and broken. There is only so much of that you can take and still come out mostly intact. I enjoy my new life of moderation. It is pleasant and predictable. I do not miss the old life a bit. Been there, done that.

Mr.Anonymous
Secret Agent

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 05, 2007
Location: A higher realm (a.k.a. Philosophy Forums)
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 612

Last Blog:

Posted 11/21/07 - 01:46 PM:	#21
Both sides are dangerous extremes in and of themselves. Bottling up your urges is potentially harmful to yourself and everyone around you, yet allowing those urges to go unchecked is also a path to "the dark side". The key is stability in the end. Do what is healthy for one's self, which includes doing what is healthy for others too.
_____________________ Freedom is thought. Fear is weakness. Information is power.

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 5382

Posted 11/26/07 - 05:26 AM:	#22
Mr.Anonymous wrote: Both sides are dangerous extremes in and of themselves. Bottling up your urges is potentially harmful to yourself and everyone around you, yet allowing those urges to go unchecked is also a path to "the dark side". The key is stability in the end. Do what is healthy for one's self, which includes doing what is healthy for others too. Remember Barry Goldwater? Goldwater wrote: I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. Inspiring words, even for progressives.
_____________________ Leave no assumption unquestioned.

Mind Left Body
Thinking Man's Dark Star

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 08, 2007
Location: Atlanta
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 37

Last Blog:

Posted 11/26/07 - 11:43 AM:	#23
what about excess in moderation? A concept coined by Doug Stanhope
_____________________ "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

Cadrache
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: NB, Canada
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 743

Posted 12/03/07 - 03:17 AM:	#24
What is moderation? Equal distribution of everything you do? Or is it something less? What makes an assessment riskier? That which prolongs the suffering of life?(age) Or that which may end said suffering? Maybe its' more? The use of all aspects of the individual to make the decision? Um... I know the general idea, and in a way, I would love to personally click Excessive, yet I would be classed as moderate. Mostly because I do take time out from WoW, to eat, and sleep!!! Well, if I still played. Damm the psychological tendency of 'having to eat'. Maybe I should go visit Mary Jane... maybe then I wouldn't be so moderate.. or get a tattoo!!!

moreno
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2007
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 198

Posted 12/04/07 - 09:03 AM:	#25
One culture's moderation is another culture's extremity. By what norm do we determine what is moderate? extreme? As far as I can tell everyone is extreme in one way or another: think of the habits of 'Western' cultures that would seem extreme to outsiders. Think about how to Buddhism we identify in extreme ways with the verbal thoughts we have. Think about how we eat and how this might be considered extreme by other cultures - and I am not even thinking about obesity levels. Think about the 'moderate' consumption of products and waste production of the average American family - is this moderate? extreme? Think about how we tend to psychologize our actions. Think about how much we drive, even those us who drive not that much - by our standards. Cultures make certain extremes the norm. Cultures - or widely held habits - tend to focus on certain skills, goals, behaviors and those in the culture take extreme use of, aiming for and acting out of these as normal, while in another culture these levels would be considered extreme. Stress levels in the West have been rising steadily, for example. Moderate people are more stressed because, perhaps, they are engaging in extremes of behavior, but they do not realize this. And so on.

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.