top of page
  • Writer's picturev e

Paradox of Two Extremes

paradox of two extremes

Is it too hard to understand that the paradox of perceiving everything from opposite extremes causes much of our political and interpersonal conflict? Why have we not learned from our history and stop making the same old mistakes? Is it because we are biased more toward short term pleasures over long term sustainable benefits?

Capitalism Vs Collectivism:

Looking at economics, the extremes are seen as capitalism vs. collectivism. Both extremes have proven very detrimental to the socioeconomic status of most people, enhancing income inequality, and benefitting only an elite. Extreme capitalism leads to crony corporatism where businesses are granted increasing power over employees. One can take United States as a prime example.

If one questions people holding capitalistic views about the failure of their system, they would simply deny that it is because of crony capitalism, not a flaw within the system.

On the other extreme, consider the collapse of the Soviet Union, a communistic society where people didn't own anything on the pretext that it serves the common good. These ideas start with equal rights or privileges even though not everyone is eligible for them. The failure of such a system is viewed by communists as the result of greedy people with the power of a dictator.

In both scenarios government leaders and a few wealthy people work symbiotically to control the socioeconomic state of society. People are taken advantage of by those who propose either of these two extremes. And neither side is willing to accept the faults of their system.

Two party system:

Almost all countries have a two party political system where people are polarized whether by choice or by some brittle reason and the election process lacks logic or reasoning, and becomes very emotional. Because of these constructed and amplified beliefs, the friction between sides is increased leading to conflicts that are not based on reason. When a person changes from one party to another party it is seen as heresy by the electorate, but swinging from one party to another is a recipe for advantage for those who are playing both sides.

Gynocentrism - Patriarchy:

Currently western culture is tending toward greater Gynocentrism, where socio economic opportunities are geared towards women by force of law and men are diminished as their traditional role dissolves. This is a leading cause of gender conflicts and the breakdown of nuclear families. On the other hand, in Patriarchal societies as in the middle east, people engage in gathering wealth so much that there are huge conflicts between various factions. Neither extreme provides a stable environment.


To sum up, powers that be take advantage of either extremes, as they are marketing in human emotion rather than reason. So instead of being subject to the gross irresponsibility of powers that be, the common man must stop being moved to perceive reality from these two manufactured political or economical extremes.

By engaging in such a contrived system, composed of radical opposing viewpoints, one has to be personally responsible for the consequences of their own short term desire to batter the other contrived radical position. Reason, virtue (as per Aristotle), and values that have helped to sustain the world are somewhere between these two extremes. Swinging between these two extremes simply wastes time and wealth, and causes more social and economic problems than the process is worth.

50 views1 comment

1 Comment

Obviously it's apt on terms perspective of prejudices...

bottom of page