Book 2 / Chapter 6
Paragraph 2 - The Intermediate Nature of Virtue
Explanation - Part By Part
"How this is to happen we have stated already, but it will be made plain also by the following consideration of the specific nature of virtue."
Aristotle is starting to expand on his earlier explanation of virtue as a "state of character" that helps people do their work well and live as good human beings. Here, he sets up a more detailed explanation by saying that he’s already hinted at how virtue works, but now he’s going to make this clearer by breaking down its specific nature. Essentially, he’s preparing the reader for a deeper dive into what makes virtue what it is and how it operates.
"In everything that is continuous and divisible it is possible to take more, less, or an equal amount, and that either in terms of the thing itself or relatively to us; and the equal is an intermediate between excess and defect."
Aristotle is explaining that in things that can be measured or divided, like actions or choices, there are always three possibilities: you can go too far (excess), not go far enough (defect), or hit the right balance (the intermediate). The ideal, or "equal," lies in the middle between these two extremes: a balanced state where neither too much nor too little is taken. This "intermediate" serves as a reference point of balance and harmony, avoiding the problems that come with either excessiveness or insufficiency.
"By the intermediate in the object I mean that which is equidistant from each of the extremes, which is one and the same for all men; by the intermediate relatively to us that which is neither too much nor too little- and this is not one, nor the same for all."
Aristotle is distinguishing between two ways of thinking about the "intermediate," or the "middle ground."
1. The intermediate in the object: This is an objective, universal midpoint. It represents a balance that is the same for everyone, regardless of circumstances. For example, if you're measuring something purely mathematically, like the number 2 and the number 10, the midpoint or "intermediate" is always 6. It’s equidistant from both extremes and is fixed.
2. The intermediate relatively to us: This, on the other hand, is subjective—it varies based on the individual and their unique situation. It’s about finding what’s "neither too much nor too little" specifically for a person and their circumstances. For instance, the amount of food that is just right for one person (a beginner at physical training) might be too small for someone else (like a seasoned athlete, Milo). This kind of intermediate is about adaptability, not one-size-fits-all rules.
So, while the "objective intermediate" is identical for everyone, the "relative intermediate" changes depending on who you are and your context. Aristotle is laying the groundwork for understanding virtue as aiming for this adaptable, relative balance in life, tailored to personal situations rather than strict universal standards.
"For instance, if ten is many and two is few, six is the intermediate, taken in terms of the object; for it exceeds and is exceeded by an equal amount; this is intermediate according to arithmetical proportion."
Here, Aristotle is using a numerical example to explain the concept of a "mean" or "intermediate." Imagine a spectrum or a range between two extremes, like the numbers 10 (too much) and 2 (too little). The number 6 is the balanced middle point because it is equally distant from both extremes—this is what he calls the "intermediate" or "mean" when considered in an objective, mathematical sense (what he calls "arithmetical proportion"). It's a straightforward calculation where the balance is determined purely by equal numbers on either side.
"But the intermediate relatively to us is not to be taken so; if ten pounds are too much for a particular person to eat and two too little, it does not follow that the trainer will order six pounds; for this also is perhaps too much for the person who is to take it, or too little- too little for Milo, too much for the beginner in athletic exercises."
What Aristotle is saying here is that the idea of "the right amount" isn't a fixed number or an objective middle ground that applies to everyone in the same way. For example, if eating ten pounds of food is too much and eating two pounds is too little, the middle mathematically might be six pounds. But that doesn’t mean six pounds is necessarily the right or balanced amount for everyone. It could still be too small an amount for a highly trained athlete like Milo, who has special needs because of his physical condition or activity level, and yet it could be way too much for someone new to athletic training or with a smaller build.
The key idea here is that balance or "the right amount" (the intermediate) must be determined relative to the specific person and their unique situation—not just by some rigid mathematical calculation or universal rule.
"The same is true of running and wrestling. Thus a master of any art avoids excess and defect, but seeks the intermediate and chooses this- the intermediate not in the object but relatively to us."
Aristotle is emphasizing that the goal in any skill, activity, or pursuit is to find the right balance, not just in an abstract, universal sense, but in a way that fits the specific individual or situation. Just as in running or wrestling, where one avoids pushing too hard (excess) or too little (defect), the key is finding that "intermediate" point—the ideal balance that works for you personally. This isn't a fixed, one-size-fits-all standard but rather something that varies depending on the circumstances and the individual's abilities, needs, or context.
For example, what might be excessive effort for a beginner in wrestling could be perfectly moderate for an experienced professional. The same principle applies across life: true mastery lies in tailoring your actions to the "right amount" relative to who you are and what you're facing.