I was reminded today that, no matter how long-abandoned or recognized as fallacious an argument has become, there will always be someone to bring it up again. Most especially if the topic under discussion is a ‘philosophical’ one – people who fancy themselves philosophers never seem to discard arguments.
Today I saw someone break out the “extremes are bad, mediums are good” moral argument. As archaic as the ancient Greeks, and just as dead, but out it stumbles like a reanimated corpse to devour brains.
Thing is, always avoiding extremes is extreme. Where’s the happy medium between always seeking out happy mediums, and never doing so? Rigid adherence to the principle requires not rigidly adhering to it… which poses a bit of a problem in application.
It seems to me that the universal rules people are seeking for don’t necessarily need to point to themselves, but they do need to be self-consistent. And stay that way, no matter how many levels of analysis you put them through, or however many times you recursively apply them to themselves.