Is balance really a virtue?

If you believe that balance is a virtue, why should people stop evil? That means that life will change by itself and lead to good actions, then bad actions again, and the back to good actions. If balance is a virtue then heaven and hell are really bad places, right? If balance is a virtue, then people should try to be hateful and destructive 50% of the time and loving and supportive 50% of the time, right? Is The Creator evil too, if you believe that balance is a virtue? The Creator would have both.

Balance is the ability to be both good and evil. A creator, the Force, whatever you want to call it must have the same traits and qualities we have.

Being balanced in your heart is just an easier way of life I think.

reply to post by JibbyJedi


So if being balanced between "Good" and "Evil" is a virtue, what about Heaven and Hell? Are they both bad for lacking this virtue? How would the after life be if this is true?

reply to post by arpgme


Good and evil is a man made perception. Heaven and Hell are also man made concepts.

I wouldn't necessarily call balance a "virtue", I just think of it as a more peaceful existence.

reply to post by arpgme


Balance is not a virtue and will never be. It can not be considered as a virtue regardless of ones opinion.

A virtue is a positive trait or quality deemed to be morally good and thus is valued as a foundation of principle and good moral being. Personal virtues are characteristics valued as promoting collective and individual greatness. The opposite of virtue is vice.

en.wikipedia.org...

Balance is the positive and negative or the combination of dualities where both sides "weigh out" the same or equal.

Now if the question is do we believe in balance or the dualities, my answer is yes, but you have to understand that balance is a universal thing. If you do a good deed for one person, someone else, maybe even not known to you will suffer. All things balance out in the end, its the basic understanding of Karma.

According to Aristotle's doctrine of the mean, a virtue is opposed by 2 vices. The virtue is somewhere in the middle and it is dependent on the virtue and the person/situation. Using the example of "bravery" as a virtue, it is opposed by cowardice and recklessness. What it means for me to be brave is different than what it means for a SEAL to be brave, but we can both exhibit bravery.
4 cardinal virtues: Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, Temperance.
It would be worthwhile to try to learn about them.

oh, and virtues only apply to what is oriented on the good. You can't be brave in robbing a bank.

It also doesn't make sense to apply virtues to heaven and hell.
3 theological virtues:Faith, hope, love.
But faith and hope aren't as complete as love since you won't need faith and hope in heaven.

And hell is the absence of good, so it's impossible to be in a state to be oriented on anything good. Therefore virtues don't apply.

Originally posted by arpgme
If you believe that balance is a virtue, why should people stop evil? That means that life will change by itself and lead to good actions, then bad actions again, and the back to good actions. If balance is a virtue then heaven and hell are really bad places, right? If balance is a virtue, then people should try to be hateful and destructive 50% of the time and loving and supportive 50% of the time, right? Is The Creator evil too, if you believe that balance is a virtue? The Creator would have both.

The doctrine of the middle path has its merits, but I am inclined to agree with you. In order for balance you'd need to sway on both sides to keep even, assuming that there even is sides. But this is Aristotelean logic and a very white and black way of thinking.

Also, wouldn't prolonged periods of being always in the middle, always balanced, always on a straight path promote mediocrity and blandness in things such as creativity and thinking? Extremes are necessary for growth.

reply to post by arpgme


If I am correct in suspecting that one of my threads sparked this thread, then I should do my part in contributing.

If you have read my entire conjecture, you will have seen that I do not believe in THINGS being purely good or purely evil...only actions. And when a person does something truly good or truly evil, it is because they are either ignorant or knowledgeable. Not because they are good or evil. We say good or evil because we can either relate, or we cannot...and then we disapprove. I have said many times before that negative is just as necessary as positive...how else can we reaffirm positivity if we have nothing to compare it to?

When you start off knowing nothing, you must learn both sides of the line in order to truly understand the world you live in. That's what I meant by balance.

I'm cool with both good and evil as long as they lead to further progress. I think we should strive for consensual evil however, rather than nonconsensual. Like a violent sport... it might hurt but as long as people consent to play it I see no issue. Choice/freewill must be preserved.

I often think of evil as conflict or division. It has it's uses but we should try to balance unity and division. Staying in one polar extreme is self-limiting.

Edit to add: Even staying in one form of balance is form of polarity as there are many forms of balance.

reply to post by arpgme


Find the unity of all opposites in yourself, and act through inaction. God is the unity of all pairs of opposites, coincidentia oppositorum, and to unite with God is to be that too.

"Beyond good and evil, there is a field. I'll meet you there." -Rumi

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
reply to post by arpgme

 

Good and evil is a man made perception. Heaven and Hell are also man made concepts.

I wouldn't necessarily call balance a "virtue", I just think of it as a more peaceful existence.

But the fact is, they exist now in the mental / spiritual realm. People can visit these places even.

Originally posted by MeesterB

It also doesn't make sense to apply virtues to heaven and hell.
3 theological virtues:Faith, hope, love.
But faith and hope aren't as complete as love since you won't need faith and hope in heaven.

And hell is the absence of good, so it's impossible to be in a state to be oriented on anything good. Therefore virtues don't apply.

I really don't understand why 1 virtue would have 2 vices. Ok, so maybe I shouldn't have said "virtue" maybe I should have said "universal law". If human beings have good and evil, that would mean that some aspects of good are in hell and some aspects of the evil are in heaven, even if God had the power to erase the "good" or "evil" in a person, which side would he choose and why? The balance would still exist because there would be "hell" (evil) on one side and "heaven" (good) on the other. But the places will not have balance within it, only one or the other...

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Also, wouldn't prolonged periods of being always in the middle, always balanced, always on a straight path promote mediocrity and blandness in things such as creativity and thinking? Extremes are necessary for growth.

No, in fact it would cause stimulation. If you allow yourself to just be authentic and allow yourself to shift between negative and positive emotions, life would be more dramatic in your perspective and you'd have more inspiration. You'll be inspired to make more positive AND negative paintings, poetry, etc.

I'm not really sure, there exists a middle. Middle would basically be nothingness (non-existent). You are either alive or dead, even if you are semi-conscious, you are still in the "alive" category at that moment. An action is either creative or destructive, even if you can't see its effect, that doesn't mean it is "neutral". You are thinking of balance as being two opposites with a middle, I'm not seeing it that way, only as the two opposites.

I am thinking in terms of negation.

light - NOT light (darkness)
heat- NOT heat (coldness) - warmness is still in the "heat" category it's just a "low" amount
life - NOT life (death)
truth - NOT truth (fiction, lie)

Something like a cat would be:

cat - NOT cat
person - NOT person
me - NOT me

It doesn't really side you put the "NOT" on, but I think you get my point. I am thinking like this instead of "opposites", although in some cases it may be the same thing.

reply to post by arpgme

I'm not really sure, there exists a middle. Middle would basically be nothingness (non-existent).

Only if both sides exist at the same time. A pendulum is in constant motion, but that motion could only be achieved through balance. Without balance, it would stop swinging. Because of that balance, however, it consistently travels from one end to the other, and then back again.

That's the balance of our world. A gazelle is killed in order to give life and strength to a newborn lion cub, and a wildfire leaves ashes that eventually fertilize a new generation of seeds. Water destroys rocks and creates a new waterway that nourishes animals in another area. Again, there is no good or evil because everything helps and harms at the same time. There is only positive and negative, both of which are necessary in a world that is always learning and changing.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Yup, this seems to be the way that it is. I think people will say "so does that mean we should do nothing?", and the obvious answer is to be in balance with yourself, and know that there are people who, in balance with themselves, lean more towards creating destroying, and others who, when in balance with themselves, like to prevent it.

reply to post by arpgme


The question then becomes, "Well, if destruction is good, then when is it not good?"

My answer: destruction becomes malicious when it does more harm than good. You can kill a man to save your own life, and that's good destruction. When you kill the man to take his food, you have chosen to create a nasty habit, have deliberately caused unnecessary harm, and have possibly scarred the futures of whatever children the man may have had. If your life had been threatened, you might have done the children a favor. A dangerous man is not a fit parent. But when violence in unnecessary...

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Yeah, I think an even better word for it would be "Manipulation of Energy" or whatever you want to call it - if you have a better word than "Energy".

Manipulating the Energy so that only Good will happen to you and you can have everything for yourself, while you are tilting the side and making everyone else have only The Bad.

Although, I don't believe this actually happens. If there is a person stealing and killing, there is a person protecting and saving.