(Previous: Eudemian Ethics II.2.)
Having made these distinctions, we must grasp that in every continuum along which we can draw distinctions there is going too far and falling short and a middle way, either in relation to each other or in relation to us. These exist in fitness training, medicine, architecture, navigation, and every kind of action, whether or not founded in some form of understanding and craft; for change is continuous and action is a form of change.
In all things the middle way in relation to us is best, for that is what our understanding and reason urge us to do, and in all cases that also produces the best trait. This is clear both from bringing in what's evident and from reasoning, for opposites destroy each other and extremes are opposite both to each other and to the middle way, which is related each to each, as for instance what's equal is larger than what's smaller but is smaller than what's larger. Thus it must be that excellence of character is all about the middle way and it itself a certain midpoint. Hence we must grasp what sort of midpoint excellence is, and what sort of middle ways it is all about. In the way of precedents let us take the following outline and give our attention to each of the items.
| belligerence | impassivity | mildness |
| daring | timidity | courage |
| shamelessness | shyness | shame |
| dissipation | insensibility | moderation |
| envy | [unnamed] | indignation |
| advantage | disadvantage | justice |
| wastefulness | servility | free-heartedness |
| false pretense | false modesty | truthfulness |
| flattery | surliness | friendliness |
| obsequiousness | churlishness | dignity |
| softness | toughness | patience |
| conceitedness | small-heartedness | great-heartedness |
| ostentation | stinginess | magnificence |
| cunning | foolishness | wisdom |
These feelings and the like arise within personhood, and all of them are spoken of in terms of going too far on the one hand and falling short on the other. The belligerent person gets angry more often than one should and more quickly and at more people than one should, whereas the impassive person falls short with respect to whom, when, and how. The daring person doesn't feel terror at things one should nor when nor how one should, whereas the timid person is terrified of things one shouldn't and when one shouldn't and how one shouldn't. Likewise the dissipated person indulges in cravings and goes too far in every possible way, whereas the insensible person falls short and has no need even for what is better or natural, but is as unfeeling as a stone. The person who seeks advantage from every source is avaricious, whereas the person who seeks it from no source or from few is a loser. The pretentious person lays claim to more than what's real, the modest person to less. The flatterer joins in praise beyond what's beautiful, the surly person less than what's beautiful. Being too eager to please is obsequiousness, whereas doing so on few occasions or hardly at all is churlishness. The person who can't put up with any pain, even if it is better to do so, is soft; strictly speaking there is no name for a person who can tolerate every pain, but in a sense is called hard, enduring, and tough. The conceited person overrates their self-worth, whereas the small-hearted person underrates it. The wasteful person goes too far with every expense, whereas the servile person falls short. Likewise with the stingy person and the snob, for one goes beyond what's fitting and the other falls short of what's fitting. The cunning person seeks every advantage from every source, whereas the foolish person doesn't even seek advantage from sources one should. The envious person is pained by more instances of success than one should be (for the envious person is pained even by the success of those who deserve to do well); there is no name for the opposite, although there is the person who goes too far in not being pained by undeserved success but instead is overly tolerant (like someone who will eat anything), whereas it is through envy that the other is intolerant.
It would be a waste of effort to specify in each case that these feelings are not merely by-the-way, for no form of understanding, whether directed at giving attention or making things, specifies this in what it says or what it does; it is said here only to address the quibbles of the craft of argumentation. So let things be defined simply in this way, but more accurately when we speak of the opposing traits.
These feelings have different ways of being that are named by differing in excess of time or intensity or the things in relation to which the feelings arise. I mean for instance the unstable person is named by feeling more quickly than one should, the hard and fierce person by feeling more intensely, the bitter person by nursing their anger, and the aggressive and abusive person by seeking retribution because of their anger, while gourmands and gluttons and drunkards are so named by having an emotional capacity to take pleasure in their respective foods beyond reason.
We must not ignore the fact that some of the descriptions are not a matter of "how", if "how" is taken in the sense of feeling more. For instance, an adulterer is not so called for seducing married women more than one should (for there is no such thing); instead, adultery itself already a form of corruption, as its name implies. Likewise with assault. Thus people contest an accusation by saying they had sex but it wasn't adultery because they did so unwittingly or were compelled to do so, or that they hit someone but it wasn't assault; and similarly in other cases.
(Cross-posted at Beautiful Wisdom.)
FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION