Chapter 80 - Ancient & Classical Perspectives: The Golden Mean and Inner Freedom

 

Ancient & Classical Perspectives: The Golden Mean and Inner Freedom

Introduction

The philosophical landscape of antiquity reveals a profound and enduring concern with two fundamental questions that continue to resonate in contemporary thought: How should one live well, and what constitutes genuine freedom? Ancient and classical philosophers, from Greece to Rome to China, developed sophisticated frameworks that interweave the concepts of virtue, balance, and autonomy into comprehensive philosophies of human flourishing. At the heart of these inquiries lies a remarkable synthesis—the understanding that true freedom emerges not from the absence of constraints, but through the cultivation of virtue, and that virtue itself is best achieved through the principle of balance or moderation.

This essay examines how ancient philosophical traditions conceived of the relationship between the golden mean—the principle of finding balance between extremes—and inner freedom—the capacity for autonomous self-governance that transcends external circumstances. The thesis presented here is that these seemingly distinct concepts represent complementary pathways to eudaimonia (flourishing), where the disciplined pursuit of the mean enables authentic freedom, and inner freedom provides the necessary foundation for virtuous action.^[1][2][3][4]

The Golden Mean: Aristotelian Foundations of Virtue

Eudaimonia and the Pursuit of Human Flourishing

Aristotle's conception of the golden mean emerges from his broader ethical framework centered on eudaimonia—a term traditionally translated as "happiness" but more accurately understood as "flourishing" or "living well". Unlike fleeting emotional states, eudaimonia represents a permanent condition achieved through the excellent performance of human beings' distinctive function: the use of reason in accordance with virtue.^[2][4][5][1]

The concept of eudaimonia fundamentally differs from modern notions of happiness rooted in subjective pleasure or contentment. As Aristotle conceived it, eudaimonia is an objective state of human excellence that may sometimes require actions contrary to immediate pleasure or comfort—such as telling an uncomfortable truth to a friend. This flourishing is achieved through the cultivation of both intellectual virtues (developed through instruction) and moral virtues (developed through habitual practice).^[4][6][1]

The Doctrine of the Mean Between Excess and Deficiency

Aristotle's doctrine of the mean posits that every moral virtue lies between two vicious extremes: one of excess and one of deficiency. This principle, while popularly known as the "golden mean," was never actually called "golden" by Aristotle himself, who simply referred to it as the "mean". The mean represents not a mathematical average but a contextually determined excellence that requires practical wisdom (phronesis) to discern.^{[7][3][8][1][2]}

The doctrine operates on the understanding that virtues are not fixed quantities but dynamic dispositions that must be calibrated according to circumstance, individual capacity, and situation. As Aristotle explains in the Nicomachean Ethics, virtue lies "at the right times, about the right things, towards the right people, for the right end, and in the right way". This contextual nature distinguishes the ethical mean from a mechanical calculation—it "fluctuates with the collateral circumstances of each situation, and discovers itself only to mature and flexible reason".^[1][2]

Practical Wisdom as the Guide to Virtue

The successful application of the golden mean depends entirely upon phronesis (practical wisdom)—the intellectual virtue that enables one to deliberate well about human affairs and make sound moral judgments. Without practical wisdom, one cannot identify where the mean lies in any particular situation, as this determination requires both understanding of universal moral principles and careful attention to particular circumstances.^[3][7][2]

This relationship between practical wisdom and virtue reveals the sophistication of Aristotelian ethics. The mean is not a simple rule to follow but a complex skill requiring years of habituation, reflection, and experience. As Aristotle notes, virtues arise "through long habituation, reflection, and the benefits of appropriate social experiences and circumstances".^[5][2]

Examples: Courage, Generosity, and Temperance

The virtue of courage exemplifies the doctrine of the mean most clearly. Courage represents the mean between cowardice (deficiency of boldness in facing danger) and recklessness (excess of boldness that fails to properly assess risk). The courageous person "judges that some dangers are worth facing and others not, and experiences fear to a degree that is appropriate to his circumstances".^[9][2][3][1]

Similarly, generosity occupies the mean between stinginess (deficiency) and wastefulness (excess). The generous person gives the right amount, to the right people, at the right time, and for the right reasons. Temperance represents the balanced disposition toward pleasure, avoiding both the deprivation of necessary goods and the excess of indulgence.^[2][1]

These examples illustrate how the golden mean functions not as rigid adherence to a middle position, but as the cultivation of practical wisdom that enables appropriate responses to varied circumstances. The mean "will sometimes be closer to one extreme than the other" depending on the situation.^[2]

Stoic Conceptions of Inner Freedom

The Dichotomy of Control: What Is Up to Us vs. What Is Not

The Stoic conception of inner freedom finds its most systematic expression in Epictetus's dichotomy of control, which opens his Enchiridion with the fundamental distinction: "Some things are within our power, while others are not". Within our power are our opinions, motivations, desires, aversions, and choices—in essence, our judgments and responses. Not within our power are our bodies, property, reputation, relationships, and external circumstances.^{[10][11][12][13]}

This distinction represents more than a practical guideline; it constitutes the foundation of Stoic ethics and psychology. As Epictetus argued, human suffering arises primarily from attempting to control what lies beyond our power while neglecting what is genuinely within our control. The dichotomy of control offers a radical reorientation: true freedom comes not from manipulating external circumstances but from mastering our internal responses.^{[11][14][12][10]}

Modern Stoic thinkers have refined this binary distinction into a trichotomy of control, recognizing three categories: things fully within our control (our beliefs, judgments, decisions), things partially within our influence (relationships, health, career outcomes), and things completely outside our control (the past, other people's actions, natural disasters). This refinement acknowledges the complexity of human agency while maintaining the core insight that our ultimate power lies in our response to circumstances.^[11]

Epictetus on Psychological Liberation from External Constraints

Epictetus's teaching on inner freedom gains particular poignancy from his personal history as a former slave who became one of antiquity's most influential philosophers. His philosophy demonstrates how genuine freedom is fundamentally psychological rather than political or social. As he proclaimed, "No man is free who is not a master of himself".^[15][16][17]

The Stoic conception of freedom operates on multiple levels. At the most basic level, it requires recognizing the difference between our voluntary actions and involuntary reactions. We cannot control the initial impression that an event makes upon us—what earlier Stoics called propatheiai or "proto-emotions"—but we can control whether we assent to that impression and allow it to develop into a full emotional response.^[12][18]

Epictetus taught that true freedom emerges through the disciplined cultivation of four key practices: freeing the mind from false judgments about what we can control, training virtuous habits through consistent practice, controlling desires by focusing only on what is genuinely "up to us," and accepting fate (amor fati) as the natural order of the universe. Through these practices, one achieves what Epictetus called autarkeia—complete self-sufficiency that makes one immune to external coercion or manipulation.^[16]

Marcus Aurelius and the Cultivation of Inner Tranquility

Marcus Aurelius, the philosopher-emperor, represents the practical application of Stoic principles to the challenges of power and responsibility. His Meditations, written as private reflections rather than public instruction, reveal how inner freedom operates under the most demanding external circumstances.^[19][20][15]

Aurelius developed what might be called a "therapeutic" approach to maintaining inner tranquility. He practiced beginning each day by preparing mentally for the challenges ahead, reminding himself that difficult people act from ignorance rather than malice, and that "none of them can hurt me" because external events cannot touch the essential self. This discipline of morning reflection serves as a form of psychological inoculation against the frustrations and disappointments inevitable in human affairs.^[19]

The emperor's approach to inner freedom emphasizes the impermanence of all external conditions. As he wrote, "time is a river, a violent stream of things coming into sight and then rushing out of sight". This recognition of transience liberates one from excessive attachment to temporary circumstances, whether pleasant or unpleasant. Inner peace emerges from accepting the natural flow of change while maintaining focus on one's character and choices.^[21][20][22]

Seneca on Autonomy and the Will

Seneca's contribution to Stoic conceptions of freedom lies particularly in his development of the concept of voluntas (will), a term without direct equivalent in earlier Greek Stoicism. Seneca's exploration of the will represents a significant advance in understanding human agency and moral responsibility.^[18]

Seneca distinguished between different types of voluntary action. At one level, all assent is voluntary because it lies within our power to accept or reject impressions. However, Seneca also employed a normative conception of voluntariness, arguing that only virtuous action is truly free because only such action flows from fully rational judgment. Actions motivated by emotion or irrational desire, while technically voluntary, represent a form of internal slavery to passion.^[23][18]

This analysis reveals the sophistication of Stoic thinking about freedom and determinism. While external events follow natural laws beyond our control, our responses to those events remain free insofar as they flow from rational judgment. The cultivation of virtue thus becomes simultaneously the development of genuine autonomy—the capacity to act from one's own rational nature rather than being driven by external forces or internal compulsions.^[18][23]

Platonic Perspectives on Soul and Liberation

The Tripartite Soul and Rational Governance

Plato's understanding of freedom centers on the proper ordering of the soul according to rational principles. In the Republic, Plato presents his famous tripartite analysis: the soul consists of reason (the rational element), spirit (courage and emotion), and appetite (desires and physical needs). Justice in the soul occurs when reason rules over spirit and appetite, just as justice in the state occurs when the philosopher-kings govern the guardians and producers.^{[24][25][26][27]}

This psychological analysis reveals that freedom, for Plato, is not the absence of constraint but the right kind of constraint—the governance of the higher elements over the lower. The soul enslaved to appetite is not free, even if external circumstances permit unlimited indulgence. True freedom emerges when reason, informed by knowledge of the Good, directs the soul toward virtue and truth.^[25][26][24]

The Platonic conception differs significantly from modern notions of autonomy that emphasize individual choice and self-determination. For Plato, genuine freedom requires conformity to objective moral truth, not the expression of subjective preferences. The soul achieves freedom by aligning itself with the eternal Forms, particularly the Form of the Good, which serves as the source of both knowledge and virtue.^[28][24][25]

Freedom Through Philosophical Contemplation

In dialogues such as the Phaedo, Plato presents philosophical contemplation as the highest form of human freedom. The philosopher, through dialectical reasoning and contemplation of the Forms, liberates the soul from the distractions and illusions of the material world. This liberation is both intellectual—achieving true knowledge—and moral—purifying the soul of vice.^[26][24][25]

The process of philosophical liberation involves what Plato calls anamnesis (recollection)—the soul's recovery of knowledge it possessed before embodiment. Through careful reasoning and dialogue, the soul remembers eternal truths that have been obscured by sensory experience and bodily needs. This recollection represents "the closest that human minds can come to experiencing the freedom of the soul before it is encumbered by matter".^[29][25]

Philosophical contemplation thus serves a liberating function by reconnecting the soul with its true nature and proper objects of knowledge. The philosopher achieves freedom not by escaping all constraints, but by aligning with the constraints that flow from truth itself.^[25][26]

The Immortal Soul's Relationship to Virtue and Truth

Plato's doctrine of the soul's immortality provides the metaphysical foundation for his understanding of freedom. In the Phaedo, Socrates argues that the soul's ability to know eternal truths demonstrates its kinship with the eternal realm of Forms. The soul is immortal because it participates in the unchanging nature of truth itself.^[24][26][25]

This immortality carries both epistemological and ethical implications. Epistemologically, it explains how humans can acquire knowledge that transcends particular sensory experience. Ethically, it provides the foundation for virtue, as the immortal soul naturally seeks alignment with eternal goods rather than temporary pleasures.^[26][24][25]

The relationship between virtue and freedom emerges clearly in this context. The virtuous soul acts in accordance with its immortal nature, while the vicious soul betrays its true essence by enslaving itself to temporal goods. As Plato argues in the Republic, the just soul is internally harmonious and therefore free, while the unjust soul suffers internal conflict and slavery to passion.^[27][25][26]

Cross-Cultural Parallels: The Confucian Mean and Buddhist Middle Path

Zhongyong (中庸): The Confucian Doctrine of the Mean

The Chinese philosophical tradition independently developed concepts remarkably similar to Aristotle's golden mean through the Confucian Zhongyong (中庸), traditionally translated as "Doctrine of the Mean". Attributed to Zisi, Confucius's grandson, this text explores the principle of zhong (center/balance) and yong (constancy/harmony) as fundamental to both personal cultivation and social order.^{[30][31][32][33]}

The Confucian mean encompasses "moderation, rectitude, objectivity, sincerity, honesty, truthfulness, propriety, equilibrium, and lack of prejudice". Like Aristotelian virtue, it requires contextual judgment: "a friend should be neither too close nor too remote," and "neither in grief nor in joy should one be excessive". The ideal is to "adhere unswervingly to the mean, or centre course, at all times and in every situation".^[32]

Central to the Zhongyong is the concept of cheng (sincerity), which represents the authentic nature transmitted from Heaven to all beings. Sincerity is "the actual nature of Heaven that was transmitted to all beings" and "the root of human behaviour". Through sincere adherence to the mean, the individual achieves harmony with the cosmic order and contributes to social stability.^[33][30]

The text emphasizes that mastery of the mean requires extensive learning and self-cultivation. The superior person "learns in all broadness, questions with caution, is careful in his thoughts, discusses clearly, and acts faithfully". This cultivation is not solitary but social—personal perfection "reaches outwards; first it perfects society, and then it joins with the eternal perfection that is contained in heaven".^[30][33]

Buddhist Madhyamika: The Middle Path Between Extremes

Buddhism contributes the concept of the Middle Path (Majjhimāpaṭipadā), first articulated in the Buddha's initial teaching after his enlightenment. The Middle Path avoids the extremes of sensual indulgence and self-mortification, representing "the Noble Eightfold Path, and nothing else, namely: right understanding, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration".^[34][35][36]

The parable of the bird in the Shugyo Dochi Sutra illustrates the practical wisdom required to follow the Middle Path. A captured bird realizes that becoming too fat will lead to slaughter, while eating too little will cause starvation. By eating "just the right amount," the bird shrinks to the size of the cage holes and escapes to freedom. This parable demonstrates how moderation enables liberation from constraining circumstances.^[34]

The Madhyamika philosophy developed by Nagarjuna extends the Middle Path to metaphysical questions, avoiding extremes of existence and non-existence. This "middle way" represents "a freedom from the extremes of existence and non-existence, which is the definition of emptiness". The ultimate Middle Path transcends even spiritual attachments, involving "direct penetration into the truth, in which even the subtle, spiritual manifestations are transcended".^{[35][36][37][38]}

Buddhist understanding connects the Middle Path directly to freedom from suffering. By avoiding extremes of attachment and aversion, practitioners develop equanimity that leads to "insight, liberation from suffering, and spiritual development". The Middle Path thus serves as both method and goal—the balanced practice that culminates in the freedom of enlightenment.^[35][34]

Universal Principles of Balance and Moderation

The convergence of Greek, Roman, Chinese, and Indian traditions around principles of balance and moderation suggests universal features of human moral psychology. These diverse traditions independently recognized that human flourishing requires avoiding extremes while cultivating practical wisdom to discern appropriate responses to varied circumstances.^{[39][32][34][35]}

Common elements include: the recognition that virtue lies between vicious extremes; the requirement for practical wisdom to identify the appropriate mean in specific situations; the understanding that balance must be actively maintained through consistent practice; and the insight that genuine freedom emerges through disciplined cultivation of virtue rather than unlimited license.^{[39][32][34][35]}

These parallels suggest that the relationship between balance and freedom reflects fundamental structures of human experience. Whether expressed through Aristotelian phronesis, Stoic prohairesis, Confucian cheng, or Buddhist prajna (wisdom), ancient wisdom traditions converge on the insight that authentic freedom requires the disciplined cultivation of balanced judgment and virtuous character.

Synthesis: The Unity of Virtue and Freedom

How the Golden Mean Enables Authentic Freedom

The relationship between the golden mean and inner freedom reveals itself as complementary rather than contradictory. Far from constraining freedom, the disciplined pursuit of virtue through balanced judgment creates the conditions for genuine autonomy. This apparent paradox resolves when we distinguish between two conceptions of freedom: negative freedom (absence of constraints) and positive freedom (capacity for self-determination according to one's rational nature).^{[12][1][11][2]}

The golden mean enables authentic freedom by developing the practical wisdom necessary for sound judgment. Without the ability to discern appropriate responses to circumstances, choice becomes arbitrary or driven by immediate impulse rather than reasoned reflection. The person who lacks virtue is not truly free but enslaved to passion, ignorance, or external manipulation. Conversely, the virtuous person who has cultivated balanced judgment possesses genuine autonomy—the capacity to act from rational principle rather than external compulsion or internal disorder.^{[3][12][18][2]}

This enabling relationship operates through several mechanisms. First, virtue provides stability of character that makes consistent choice possible. The person of virtue can be relied upon to act in predictable ways because virtue represents a stable disposition rather than fluctuating mood or circumstance. Second, virtue develops emotional regulation that prevents being overwhelmed by immediate impulses. Third, virtue creates genuine self-knowledge that enables authentic choice aligned with one's deepest values and commitments.^{[15][5][1][25][12][18]}

Inner Freedom as the Foundation for Virtuous Action

Conversely, inner freedom provides the necessary foundation for virtuous action by establishing the psychological conditions required for genuine moral choice. Without some degree of internal autonomy—the capacity to step back from immediate circumstances and choose one's response—virtue remains impossible. The person entirely driven by external forces or internal compulsions cannot be virtuous because virtue requires deliberate choice and consistent commitment.^[10][11][12]

Stoic psychology illuminates this relationship through its analysis of prohairesis (moral choice). The capacity to choose our judgments and responses represents the irreducible core of human freedom that even extreme external constraints cannot eliminate. As Epictetus, who experienced slavery firsthand, demonstrated, genuine freedom operates independently of social or political status.^{[17][16][10][11][12]}

This foundational role of inner freedom explains why ancient philosophers focused so intensively on self-knowledge and self-mastery. External freedom without internal discipline leads to license rather than virtue, while internal freedom provides the stable foundation for ethical development regardless of external circumstances. The philosopher-emperor Marcus Aurelius exemplifies this principle—maintaining virtue and inner tranquility while bearing enormous external responsibilities.^{[20][25][11][12][18][19]}

The Paradox of Constraint and Liberation in Ancient Wisdom

Ancient philosophical traditions consistently recognize a fundamental paradox: genuine freedom requires voluntary constraint, while unlimited license leads to slavery. This paradox appears across different schools and cultures because it reflects deep truths about human nature and moral psychology.^{[15][25][12][18]}

The resolution lies in distinguishing between different types of constraint. External constraints imposed by force or manipulation diminish freedom by preventing authentic choice. However, internal constraints voluntarily adopted through reason and virtue enhance freedom by enabling more effective agency. The musician who masters technical discipline gains greater expressive freedom; similarly, the person who cultivates virtue gains greater capacity for authentic choice and action.^{[1][11][12][18][2]}

This paradox manifests differently across traditions but maintains consistent underlying logic. Aristotelian virtue requires habituation that initially constrains immediate impulses but ultimately enables flourishing. Stoic discipline involves accepting external circumstances while maintaining internal freedom. Platonic philosophy demands rigorous training in dialectic that constrains opinion but liberates the soul for knowledge of truth. Confucian cultivation requires strict adherence to ritual and propriety that enables social harmony and personal integrity.^{[5][32][25][11][26][12][30][1]}

The wisdom traditions converge on the insight that authentic freedom emerges through voluntary submission to rational principle rather than arbitrary external authority or internal impulse. This submission is liberating because it aligns the person with their deepest nature and highest capacities rather than fragmenting them through internal conflict or external manipulation.

Contemporary Relevance and Conclusion

Modern Applications of Ancient Wisdom

The integration of the golden mean and inner freedom offers profound resources for contemporary challenges around autonomy, authenticity, and well-being. Modern psychology has rediscovered many insights of ancient virtue ethics through research on emotional regulation, resilience, and human flourishing. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy explicitly draws on Stoic techniques for managing thoughts and emotions.^{[14][13][6][40][11]}

Contemporary discussions of autonomy often emphasize individual choice and self-expression without sufficient attention to the conditions that make meaningful choice possible. Ancient wisdom traditions suggest that genuine autonomy requires the cultivation of practical wisdom and virtue—capacities that develop through discipline, habituation, and community. The modern emphasis on authenticity might benefit from ancient insights about the relationship between self-knowledge and virtue.^{[41][25][5][18][1][2]}

The ancient synthesis also speaks to current debates about freedom and constraint in various domains. Educational philosophy might learn from ancient recognition that disciplined training enables rather than restricts genuine creativity and expression. Political philosophy might benefit from understanding how inner freedom provides the foundation for meaningful participation in democratic institutions. Personal development approaches might integrate ancient insights about the relationship between virtue and well-being.^{[6][40][42][41][5][1]}

The Enduring Significance of Balanced Living and Inner Autonomy

The perennial appeal of ancient wisdom traditions suggests that the relationship between the golden mean and inner freedom addresses fundamental features of human existence that transcend historical and cultural boundaries. The challenges of finding balance between competing goods, developing practical wisdom for complex decisions, and maintaining integrity under pressure remain central to human experience.^{[32][39][34][35]}

The ancient synthesis offers a vision of human flourishing that integrates individual fulfillment with social responsibility, personal freedom with moral constraint, and practical wisdom with transcendent value. This integration addresses contemporary concerns about fragmentation, meaninglessness, and moral confusion by providing frameworks for coherent living that honor both human autonomy and moral truth.^[4][33][5]

Perhaps most significantly, the ancient perspectives offer hope that genuine freedom and authentic virtue remain possible despite external constraints and internal limitations. The examples of figures like Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, and Confucius demonstrate that the cultivation of inner freedom and balanced judgment can flourish under the most challenging circumstances. Their legacy suggests that the human capacity for virtue and freedom represents an inexhaustible resource for individual and collective flourishing.^{[16][30][19][15]}

The synthesis of the golden mean and inner freedom thus provides not merely historical interest but practical wisdom for contemporary living. In a world often characterized by extremes and fragmentation, the ancient insight that virtue and freedom mutually enable each other offers guidance for developing both personal integrity and social flourishing. The discipline required for this integration may seem demanding, but ancient wisdom traditions consistently testify that such discipline liberates rather than constrains our deepest capacities for wisdom, virtue, and authentic freedom.

⁂

1. https://www.thecollector.com/what-is-the-golden-mean-in-aristotles-ethics/

2. https://philosophybreak.com/articles/the-golden-mean-aristotle-guide-to-living-excellently/

3. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/

4. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/

5. https://www.britannica.com/topic/eudaimonia

6. https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-eudaimonia/

7. https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/1segh8/what_does_aristotles_golden_mean_really_mean/

8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_mean_(philosophy)

9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ3K19yrnMU

10. https://licentiapoetica.com/the-dichotomy-of-control-a956f31a906b

11. https://www.thelivingphilosophy.com/p/stoicisms-dichotomy-of-control

12. https://aurumsharpe.com/2024/07/22/the-nature-of-freedom-according-to-epictetus/

13. https://philosophybreak.com/articles/dichotomy-of-control-a-stoic-device-for-a-tranquil-mind/

14. https://iep.utm.edu/stoicism/

15. https://fee.org/articles/marcus-aurelius-s-guide-to-inner-freedom/

16. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCMH8ehFwHk

17. https://lithub.com/what-the-stoic-philosophers-knew-about-being-free/

18. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/seneca/

19. https://www.themarginalian.org/2015/08/13/marcus-aurelius-meditations-begin-each-day/

20. https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/meditations-marcus-aurelius/1146707990?ean=9782384232253

21. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58EHH_cPhbk

22. https://historycollection.com/15-timeless-lessons-from-marcus-aurelius-meditations/

23. https://platosacademycentre.substack.com/p/beyond-autonomy-seneca-and-stoicisms

24. https://iep.utm.edu/platopol/

25. https://minervawisdom.com/2019/05/16/platos-phaedo-the-battle-over-the-soul-and-the-polis/

26. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ancient-soul/

27. https://iep.utm.edu/justwest/

28. https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=phil_etds

29. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamnesis_(philosophy)

30. http://www.chinaknowledge.de/Literature/Classics/zhongyong.html

31. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_the_Mean

32. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Zhongyong

33. https://chinaconnectu.com/wp-content/pdf/Zhong-Yong-Doctrine-of-the-Mean.pdf

34. https://www.nst.org/articles/the-middle-path

35. https://www.wisdomlib.org/concept/middle-path

36. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Way

37. https://apramada.org/articles/the-middle-path-and-its-three-modalities

38. https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/4nj13d/what_is_the_middle_way_and_how_do_we_live_it/

39. https://www.britannica.com/topic/golden-mean

40. https://positivepsychology.com/eudaimonia/

41. https://iep.utm.edu/normative-autonomy/

42. https://constitutingamerica.org/90day-aer-stoics-and-classic-roman-thought-on-human-nature-and-good-government-guest-essayist-joerg-knipprath/

43. https://jemsu.com/how-does-the-stoic-idea-of-cultivating-inner-freedom-resonate-in-a-world-full-of-external-constraints/

44. https://study.com/academy/lesson/golden-mean-aristotle-overview-philosophy.html

45. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism

46. https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/comments/v8cdfl/epictetus_said_freedom_is_secured_not_by_the/

47. https://thestoicgym.com/the-stoic-magazine/article/386

48. https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/p5p9zq/can_aristotles_golden_mean_relate_not_just_to/

49. https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/comments/1kx9cz9/if_fate_governs_all_and_reason_is_our_only_true/

50. https://neelburton.com/2023/04/18/aristotles-golden-mean-or-how-to-be-good-and-happy/

51. https://archive.pagecentertraining.psu.edu/public-relations-ethics/ethical-decision-making/yet-another-test-page/ethical-orientations-the-golden-mean/

52. https://orionphilosophy.com/a-brief-history-of-stoicism/

53. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-ancient/

54. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/

55. https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/b8yta8/in_the_absence_of_a_belief_in_the_soul_does/

56. https://orionphilosophy.com/stoicism-and-the-dichotomy-of-control/

57. https://academic.oup.com/book/39974/chapter/340285980

58. https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/15f6tvg/if_you_wish_to_have_peace_and_contentment_release/

59. https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/comments/o6dj9v/a_brief_history_of_ancient_stoic_philosophers/

60. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/365-ways-to-be-more-stoic/202304/the-stoic-dichotomy-of-control-in-practice

61. https://jackkornfield.com/finding-the-middle-way/

62. https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/l4ut6/whats_the_main_difference_between_eudaimonian/

63. https://laits.utexas.edu/~mr56267/HIST_301J/Sources/Daxue-Zhongyong.pdf

64. http://wengu.tartarie.com/wg/wengu.php?no=-1&l=Zhongyong

65. https://www.newphilosopher.com/articles/living-a-flourishing-life/

66. http://www.acmuller.net/con-dao/docofmean.html

67. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7329376/

68. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/

69. https://dn720006.ca.archive.org/0/items/meditationsofmar00marc/meditationsofmar00marc.pdf

70. https://academic.oup.com/book/49805/chapter/422038647

71. https://www.planksip.org/fate-and-human-freedom-in-ancient-philosophy/

72. https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/comments/mj4up1/aurelius_and_the_inner_oasis/