The Happy Middle

The Happy Middle

We all know that person that is so smart we just cannot stand them. We also all know that person that is the exact opposite and we dislike them for that reason. We use phrases such as “know-it-all” for people we dislike for being too smart or “ditsy” for people we dislike for being too dumb. It is not the fact of the level of intelligence that a person has that we base our judgment off of, it is in fact the character of the person. According to Hume, the philosopher, who is considered to be very knowledgeable, is not very accepted by society because he is thought to be a recluse who attributes little to society. Hume also claims that the other side of the spectrum, an ignorant person, is more despised. With this being said, Hume came to the conclusion that the perfect character is someone who falls in the middle of these two extremes.   The question is, how does one find the perfect middle? How does saying neutral between these two extremes make one honorable? Philosophy does not make you perfect, nor does ignorance; perfection lies somewhere in the middle of the two. 

Personally, I thought that philosophers were those who are held in high regard by society because of their high intellect. However, Hume states that society does not hold them in high regard. He states that they are thought to contribute nothing to society. The text says “The mere philosopher is a character, which is commonly but little acceptable in the world, as being supposed to contribute nothing either to the advantage or pleasure of society; while he lives remote from communication with mankind, and is wrapped up in principles and notions equally remote from their comprehension” (5.8). The first time I read this, I was confused. I thought that philosophers did contribute much to society. However, the more I thought about it, the more I agree with Hume. The picture of a philosopher he is painting here is one that is secluded to his study, never experiencing anything. He just sits around and thinks and studies. While thinking and studying can be a good thing, if you are never going out into the world and experiencing anything for yourself, you are doing yourself a huge disservice. Also, if you are not a member of society and actively apart of your community, others will not like you. There is nothing wrong with wanting to dive deeper into life and devoting yourself to study, but that cannot be all that you wish to do. Also, if you do not experience life for yourself, your learning is limited. Much of what we learn comes from experience. It also comes from the knowledge of others. This is why secluded yourself from society is considered dishonorable. You are dishonoring yourself and those in your community. You are not giving anything to yourself or society. 

On the complete other side of the spectrum, is the ignorant character. While the philosopher is looked down as being a recluse who contributes nothing to society, the ignorant are more despised and also viewed as contributing little to society. Hume wrote, “On the other hand, the mere ignorant is still more despised; nor is anything deemed more surer sign of an illiberal genius is an age and nation where the sciences flourish, than to be entirely destitute of all relish for those noble entertainments” (5.8). According to Hume, the day and age he wrote this was a time when the sciences were very important. People cared about advancing intellectually. Even though it was stated above that someone who only cared about learning and secluded himself from the world was not good, the other extreme is also looked down on. If you do not care at all about the world around you and advancing yourself intellectually, society looks down on you. If you do not try and learn and grow in knowledge, how can you attribute to society. All an ignorant person does is care for themselves. He does not care about the world around and how he can better it; he only cares about what he wants to do and what is in his best interest. This is not the total opposite of the philosopher. The philosopher is selfish as well, because he only cares about growing his own knowledge and not about how he can give back and be a member of society. The two may be on complete opposite ends of each other; however, the one thing they do share in common is their selfishness. 

Now that it is clear what the two sides of the spectrum are, how can the middle be found. Hume states that the perfect character is found in between the philosopher and the ignorant. How can we balance between the two. Hume says, “The most perfect character is supposed to lie between those extremes; retaining an equal ability and taste for books, company, and business” (5.8). The perfect character cares about his studies and growing intellectually, but he still knows there is more to life. He knows how to balance business and pleasure. The perfect character can give back to society while still being able to take time and focus on himself. You must care about your studies and take time for yourself, but equally take time for others and being out in the world. How is this honorable? It is honorable because the perfect character is and intellectual that cares about expanding his mind while being a contributing, active member of society. Philosophy does not make you perfect, nor does ignorance; perfection lies somewhere in the middle of the two.