In the last blog we discussed the potential problems of staying in the middle. The key problem with this approach is that we are never exploring the limits. If we experiment with the limits we can learn how to get a more optimal grip (Merleau Ponty, 2013) on a variety of situations across a variety of circumstances.
Staying in the middle makes logical sense. It declares that we can avoid the excesses of the extremes whilst taking the best of both worlds. However, there is contained within this assumption that sometimes something more radical and extreme is never required. Our experience of life tells us something different, sometimes we just need to take a risk and a leap of faith (McGilchrst, 2021, Kierkegaard, 1946). If we are constantly avoiding the extremes, the risks and leaps of faith, then we are shutting out vital aspects of life. A refusal to engage with these aspects is worryingly linked to major rises in depression and anxiety (McGilchrist, 2021).
From a pragmatic perspective, it might be worth thinking of the extremes like this- they are great places to visit, but you do not want to live there. Let’s labor our ongoing example to illustrate. If we take an extreme position and are always completely honest in all situations, then our lives are likely to be in ruins. However, if we have, on occasion, been completely honest but then returned to a more flexible position (what Aristotle, 2019, might call the Golden Mean), then we will know what it is LIKE to be completely honest, and the consequences of it. Our knowledge of how to fit honesty effectively to the nuances of a specific situation will be enriched.
The experience of complete honesty will provide insight into how well fitted this approach was to the situation, how it made us feel, how we could do it better, or if we prefer a kinder gentler approach wherever possible. Without this experience of the extreme, we have reduced our potential perspective, and this leads us back to Nagel and bats (1974).
Nagel argued that we can know many things about the world, such as numerous facts about the animal, the bat, but we can never know what it is like to be a bat, we can never take this animal’s perspective. There is always something missing from the observed. However, we could concretely know what it is like to be completely honest, we can open ourselves up to this experience. If we have never been completely honest, then we can only have theoretical knowledge of ourselves. If we insist on staying in the middle, then our own perspective of ourselves is conjecture; we have become like a bat to ourselves.
This is the role leaps of faith and risk play in life. They increase our perspective on ourselves so we can participate more effectively in a variety of situations. We experience these as visits to the extreme, and when we return, we are wiser and more experienced. Without these visits, we can only hypothesize what we would be like, for example, if we were completely honest. All we would have, to draw from another Nagel observation, is the view from nowhere (Nagel, 1989).
Reading
Aristotle, A., 2019. The ethics of Aristotle. BoD–Books on Demand.
Merleau-Ponty, M., 2013. Phenomenology of perception. Routledge.
Kierkegaard, S., 1946. Kierkegaard anthology. Princeton University Press.
McGilchrist, I., 2021. The Matter with Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions, and the Unmaking of the World. What Then is True?. Volume Two. Perspectiva Press.
Nagel, T., 1974. What is it like to be a bat?. The philosophical review, 83(4), pp.435-450.
Nagel, T., 1989. The view from nowhere. oxford university press.
