2007-12-13 01:07:46 · 6 answers · asked by ME 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
The very nature of the phrase "in excess" rules out the conclusion "good for you."
Logic is still a part of philosophy, no?
2007-12-13 01:11:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
One would have to interpret "in excess" to mean more than you minimally need. Obviously, eating in excess is NOT good for you but learning definitely is. Other candidates are living a healthy life style, being rational, and loving your friends and family.
2007-12-13 01:20:37 · answer #2 · answered by LucaPacioli1492 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I was going to reply LOVE however I can imagine that even that could be seen as not good for you in excess.....but I will take the chance anyway
2007-12-13 01:16:36 · answer #3 · answered by Ya Ya Vegas 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Being creative. There are no limits here other than biological ones like the need for sleep. Well, carving sculptures on the job might be frowned upon.
2007-12-13 01:13:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Aristotle argued that most human qualities are best employed in moderation. But also, some, by their nature, are only useful in excess.
For example, love. (Which is good for others, not yourself, so confuses your question.)
2007-12-13 01:18:11 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
whatever it is, it has nothing to do with other people
2007-12-13 01:49:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋