Talk:Via media

Without immediately eliding subsection "Richard Hooker" under the larger section "Anglicanism," I'm seriously wondering what is the benefit of this sub-section? Reads more like an advertisement for the author's book, or introduction of a curious factoid (betcha didn't know this!). It adds nothing of substance to this Wiki page. It is distantly related to the topic only because someone, somewhere, did not ever mention the topic even though many people believe he did? How does this advance knowledge of the topic?

I submit this is more rightly placed on any of the following Wiki pages: 1. Richard Hooker 2. Factoid

Given the following subsection, "In Tractarianism," more properly deals with Richard Hooker in this Wiki page, I submit for discussion that this subsection titled "Richard Hooker" is promotional as advertisement for business. I recommend its removal as it does not edify the page at all and, should it need to be retained in Wikipedia, it should be relocated to either or both of the recommended pages, above.

Richard Naff

Scope of article

The lede introduces the concept of moderation in classical philosophy, but that is not what the article is primarily about.

I'm not sure that 'via media' is a generally used term for the idea of moderation in Aristotle and others, but the concept is certainly worthy of an article if not covered elsewhere. The brief paragraph in moderation scarcely does the concept justice. The present lede could introduce it well.

The empty section on Erasmus needs completion or deletion.

The main content of the article addresses issues in Anglicanism, where the expression 'via media' is probably best known. It usefully separates the earlier and later senses of the term. The section on parallel developments in Nordic Lutheranism is useful. Nordic friends may differ, but it probably does not need moving into a separate article.

Should we:

1) Move the bulk of this article to 'Via media (Anglicanism)', with a new lede.

2) Start a new article on moderation in classical philosophy, with an appropriate title, following the ideas introduced in the present lede.

If there is a consensus, I would be happy to address the former. For the latter, I can only promise to read such an article with interest and pleasure! .John M Brear (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. But I think it is a mistake to say that the via media is only or mainly about moderation: it is primarily a religious not an ethical term (golden mean.)

In modern idiom, it seems that we use it as if there are three paths, and we choose the one in the middle: the Goldilocks principle. But Newman used it saying we should avoid extremes, like a path between two mountains. And Erasmus' approach was not moderation per se but that we should agree to allow each other's adiphora- things that don't matter: his prescription was peacableness not moderation, if you like. And the Anglican Latitudinarians wanted to abolish roads entirely.

And Augustine used via media to mean a bridge between opposites, nothing to do with moderation at all. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)