The refutation of extremes is a pervasive philosophical theme, particularly prominent in Buddhist thought, where it underpins the concept of the "Middle Way." However, it also finds expression in various Western philosophical traditions concerning ethics, epistemology, and political theory. ### I. Refutation of Extremes in Nagarjuna's Philosophy In the context of "Nagarjuna - The Philosophy of the Middle Way" by David J. Kalupahana, the refutation of extremes is central to Nagarjuna's core philosophy. Nagarjuna's most significant work, _Mulamadhyamakakarika_ (_Karika_), is presented as a "superb commentary" on the Buddha's _Kaccayanagotta-sutta_ and other early discourses, primarily aiming to expose the "untenability of two metaphysical views: existence (astitva) and non-existence (nastitva)". **A. Core Extremes and the Middle Way:** Nagarjuna systematically refutes various extreme conceptualizations, guiding towards the "Middle Way" (Madhyamika). These extremes include: - **Existence (astitva) and Non-existence (nastitva):** These are the primary metaphysical extremes refuted. Clinging to "existence" is seen as an apprehension of permanence, while "non-existence" is a view of annihilation. The "feebleminded" view things in terms of real existence or complete nonexistence, failing to see the peace of complete pacification. The wise are advised not to adhere to either view, as both lead to cyclic existence and lower realms, being "extremely unreasonable". - **Eight Extremes:** These encompass unarising, unceasing, unannihilated, non-eternal, unsingle, undiverse, uncoming, and ungoing. The "Middle Way" illuminates a path beyond permanence and annihilation, existence and peace. - **Causation:** Nagarjuna rejects the four metaphysical causal theories: self-causation (svata-utpatti), external causation (parata-utpatti), both self and other, or neither. He argues that nothing ever arises in any of these ways. For example, he refutes arising from self by stating that if cause and result are the same, producer and product will be the same, which is problematic. He denies that things arise from something other than themselves, concluding that they are emptiness and devoid of nature. - **Arising, Abiding, and Cessation:** These characteristics of the conditioned are extensively refuted as possessing inherent reality. For instance, a thing that has ceased does not cease because its act of ceasing is over. A thing that has yet to cease does not cease because cessation has not begun. A currently ceasing thing also does not cease as there cannot be anything apart from what has ceased or has yet to cease. Such refutations, while denying inherent existence, do not deny relative arising, which exists conventionally. - **Self (Atman) and Phenomena (Dharmas):** Nagarjuna refutes the notion of a self-entity of phenomena by analyzing aggregates, elements, and sense sources. He argues that a self independent of appropriated factors (like sight) is absurd. The "fundamental distortion" that sets the samsaric cycle in motion is the tendency to overestimate the nature of phenomena, viewing them as "independent, self-sufficient entities". **B. The Middle Way as Dependent Arising and Emptiness:** The philosophical "middle path" for Nagarjuna is **Dependent Arising (Paticcasamuppada/Pratityasamutpada)**. This doctrine rejects permanent existence and nihilistic non-existence, asserting that all phenomena exist through causal and conditioning relations, implying constant change. - **Emptiness (Sunyata)** is synonymous with dependent arising and means the "absence of self-nature (svabhava)". It signifies transience and "nothing to grasp". Importantly, emptiness is a "view" to achieve "freedom from views," not an absolute entity. Clinging to the absence of reality or emptiness is considered a flaw. If things were not empty, they could neither arise nor disintegrate, making the transcendence of suffering impossible. - **Refutation Method:** Nagarjuna uses "profound and powerful reasons" to prove that the eight extremes do not exist by showing how phenomena are empty of inherent existence. His approach is immune to criticism because it does not conflict with scripture (which contains teachings of "definitive meaning" about emptiness) and does not invalidate conventional arising. The strength of the Middle Way position lies in showing that "the realist’s argument is identical to what has yet to be proven". **C. Purpose of Refuting Extremes:** The ultimate goal of Nagarjuna's refutation of extremes is to foster **peace (nirvana)** and liberation from suffering. Nirvana is described as "unrelinquished, not reached, unannihilated, non-eternal, non-ceased and non-arisen," signifying freedom from metaphysical extremes. It means the absence of "elimination" or "attainment," "annihilation" or "permanence," "cessation" or "arising". The refutation of extremes is presented as the "supreme healing" for those "possessed by the demon of reification". ### II. Refutation of Extremes in Other Philosophical Traditions The theme of refuting or balancing extremes appears in diverse forms across philosophical thought: **A. Moral Philosophy:** - **Aristotle and the Golden Mean:** The Aristotelian doctrine of the Golden Mean teaches to affect limited monarchy or limited democracy, suggesting that virtue lies between vicious extremes. For example, liberality intervenes between justice and prodigality, and penitential fasting between temperance and undue neglect. - **Hume on Luxury:** Hume aims to correct "preposterous opinions" about luxury by proving that ages of refinement are happiest and most virtuous, and that luxury ceases to be beneficial when it ceases to be innocent. He seeks a middle ground between those who praise vicious luxury and those who blame even innocent luxury. - **Russell on Morality:** Bertrand Russell argues that "fierce morality is generally a reaction against lustful emotions" and that those who express it "suffer much more" from sexual obsession than those advocating sexual freedom. He suggests that obsessive focus on sexual topics is an evil, but the Church's methods of avoiding it are not the best. He advocates for a "normal and healthy enjoyment" of needs, similar to food, rather than asceticism for its own sake. He also notes that religious fervor, driven by fear and despair, is an "irrational reaction to danger, tending to bring about what it fears". - **Spinoza on Emotions:** Spinoza states that "emotions of over-esteem and disparagement are always bad" and "repugnant to reason". - **James on Saintliness and Evil:** William James notes that "religious phenomena, like all other human phenomena, are subject to the law of the golden mean". He highlights how "ultra-optimistic" philosophy attempts to ignore evil, but true asceticism (distinguished from its useless forms) confronts "real wrongness in this world," appealing to "heroic resources" to neutralize and cleanse it through suffering. Healthy-mindedness, he argues, "refuses to say anything" that evil is dialectically required or has a function in a final system of truth; instead, it sees evil as an "abomination" to be "sloughed off and negated". **B. Epistemology and Reason:** - **Kant's Critical Philosophy:** Kant's _Critique of Pure Reason_ aims to establish a significant but limited domain for theoretical philosophy, distinguishing it from "exaggerated claims that have brought metaphysics into disrepute". He addresses the "Antinomy of Pure Reason," which describes the inherent conflict when reason extends its principles beyond the boundaries of experience, leading to "sophistical theorems". This "conflict of reason with itself" can lead to the "euthanasia of pure reason". Kant argues for a "skeptical way" of treating such questions, which, if both affirmative and negative answers lead to "nonsense," provides "good grounds to summon our question itself to be critically examined". The "transcendental dialectic" supports the "skeptical method" by showing the utility of letting arguments confront each other, even if they don't provide desired answers. Kant advocates for "modest and self-critical rationalism" that recognizes limitations, distinguishing it from "uncritical rationalism" or "comprehensive rationalism" which tends to undermine its own position. He emphasizes the necessity of critique in all rational undertakings, asserting that "the very existence of reason depends upon this freedom". - **Hume's Skepticism:** Hume's "extreme skepticism" highlighted the difficulties of empiricism, leading to a reaction in German philosophy. While his critique has been seen as leading to "chasmic nihilism," it has also resurfaced in modern forms like logical positivism. - **Plato's Destructive Refutations:** Socrates' refutations in Plato's dialogues are often "overtly destructive rather than constructive," demonstrating the incorrectness of an interlocutor's account rather than providing the correct one. They reveal inconsistencies not just in statements but between "words and deeds," thereby refuting the person, not just the argument. This method serves a pedagogical function, inspiring independent thought. - **Popper's Critical Rationalism:** Karl Popper distinguishes between "critical rationalism" and "uncritical rationalism," emphasizing the need for a modest, self-critical approach. He suggests a "legitimate place for dogmatism," albeit a "very limited place," acknowledging that "supersensitivity with respect to refuting criticism" can be just as dangerous as avoiding falsification altogether. - **Foucault's Critique of Critique:** Foucault's work is characterized as a "radicalisation of critique," aiming to "break limits and open up possibilities beyond them," in contrast to Kant's focus on establishing limits. He problematizes limits by revealing them as "contingent and local". His critique "explicitly suspends normative commitments and eschews prescription," serving as an "instrument for those who fight, those who resist and refuse what is". Foucault's genealogies aim to "clarify and intensify awareness of present dangers" rather than legislate solutions. He argues that power is always accompanied by resistance and is never exterior to it, and his work challenges "global theories" that seek hegemony by "curtailing, dividing, caricaturing, and overthrowing non-global discourses". He aims to open dialogue across conceptual boundaries, showing that "madness is not always madness, freedom not always freedom, that reason has a history, power doesn’t negate freedom". He is wary of "universalist histories, anthropological foundations, and traditional emancipatory theories" that can be "blind to their own dominating tendencies". - **Scanlon on Rationality and Relativism:** Scanlon proposes construing "irrationality more narrowly," making his understanding of rationality "more permissive". He discusses how defensible moral standards can vary in content, but argues that his view is not "relativism" in the proper sense, explaining how moral standards can vary in ways relativists insist upon, but no more than "plausibly defended". He calls for "opening up space for ... reexamination of basic normative ideas". - **Critical Writing:** Practical advice for critical writing suggests avoiding "absolute language" unless backed by strong evidence, advocating for flexibility by using phrases like "in many cases" instead of "every" and "rarely" instead of "never." The goal is to "tentatively offer" points rather than "prove" them. **C. Political and Social Philosophy:** - **Camus on Rebellion and Limits:** Camus argues that unacceptable murders committed in the name of rebellion are a consequence of a distorted interpretation that sacrifices others for an "absolute" final aim, leading to nihilism. Genuine rebellion becomes aware of universal suffering, leading to solidarity and self-sacrifice, and must find its "measure," its own limits, to avoid the "madness of excess". - **Early Chinese Thought on Punishment:** The "Canon of Shun" advocates "compassion rule in punishment" and counsels against "excessive punishment". King Wen is praised for being "careful in the use of punishments" and for governing with "virtue" rather than "terror and violence". - **Hume on Passive Obedience:** Hume argues that the maxim "fiat Justitia & ruat CŒlum" (let justice be performed, though the universe be destroyed) is "apparently false," as public utility must sometimes supersede justice in emergencies. He concedes that resistance is justified in "extraordinary emergencies" but cautions against a "disposition to rebellion" which can lead to tyranny. - **Bauman/Arendt on Truth and Dialogue:** They emphasize that a "single absolute truth" would be the "death of all disputes" and the "end of humanity". The conviction that one's own opinions are the "sole truth" is an "obstacle on the road to human community". Instead, they advocate for commendation of "truth itself to God," meaning to leave the question of "who is right" open and allow truth to "emerge at the far end of conversation". They lament the tendency to "disqualify an adversary from the truth-debate," often by the stronger side, to avoid genuine argumentation. - **Derrida on Totalitarian Logic:** Derrida stresses the need to avoid reproducing the "logic of the discourse" of totalitarianism, fascism, or racism. He challenges the idea of a "closed and pure" system of totalitarianism, arguing that elements of such systems can appear in discourses commonly opposed to them. His concept of "limitrophy" aims to "multiply its figures, to complicate, thicken, delinearize, fold, and divide the line" of limits, rather than efface them. He cautions against assuming a "homogeneous continuity" between categories (e.g., man and animal). **D. Existentialism:** - **Beauvoir on Rejection:** Simone de Beauvoir argues that in certain situations, "rejection" is the only option for man, particularly when one's "existence as an absolute value" is denied. She notes that while a negative attitude (rejection/resistance) is often easy and unifying, the "return to the positive encounters many more obstacles". Resistance is seen as a "negation, a revolt, a martyrdom," through which "freedom was positively and absolutely confirmed". - **Sartre on Nihilation and Bad Faith:** Sartre observes that consciousness constitutes itself as a "Not," denying a future transcendence. Irony is described as annihilating what is posited within the same act. He seeks to understand the "original relation of human reality to the being of phenomena," rejecting both realist and idealist solutions. For Sartre, to hate is to abandon the claim to unite with the Other and "prefer to be again only a free nihilation of its being, a totality detotalized". **E. Critical Theory:** - **Adorno on Radical Evil:** Adorno speaks of "objective bads" like the evils of Auschwitz, which are "beyond any relativistic questioning" and "require as little philosophical proof as does its existence". He argues against seeking "rational or discursive foundations" for the impulse to resist torture, as such attempts can lead to an "infinite dialectic" where reason can be used "for or against torture, for and against murder, without finding a conclusive resting point". The impulse itself, born of "naked physical fear, and the sense of solidarity," is immanent to moral conduct. While negativism is strongest in cases of "great evils," its applicability to everyday "moral grey areas" or the potential for exaggerated negative portrayals is questioned. - **Bataille on Contradiction and Dissolution:** Bataille's work aims to "break the particular out of the classic opposition of the particular and the universal" and deepen the concept of contradiction beyond Hegel's sublation. He emphasizes that the "dialectic movement can make only the forms of the opposing terms disappear but not the opposition itself". He highlights an "irruption suddenly uncovering the limit of discourse and the beyond of absolute knowledge". He also explores how the "universal" at its "summit, causes all existence to explode and decomposes it with violence". His critique seeks to avoid the dissolution of contradictions, insisting on the "absence of every relation between irreconcilable contradictions". In essence, the refutation of extremes across these diverse philosophical traditions often involves a critical examination of absolute, dogmatic, or one-sided views, whether they pertain to metaphysical existence, moral principles, or social structures. The aim is frequently to reveal underlying contradictions, ambiguities, or limitations, thereby opening a path towards a more nuanced understanding, practical wisdom, or genuine liberation.