Samuel Johnson: 'There are goods so opposed that we cannot seize both, but, by too much prudence, may pass between them at too great a distance to reach either.'

There are goods so opposed that we cannot seize both, but, by too much prudence, may pass between them at too great a distance to reach either.

Samuel Johnson, the 18th-century English writer and lexicographer, once observed, "There are goods so opposed that we cannot seize both, but, by too much prudence, may pass between them at too great a distance to reach either." This quote encapsulates a profound truth about the nature of decision-making and the potential pitfalls of excessive caution. Johnson suggests that in life, there are certain goods or desirable outcomes that are mutually exclusive, forcing us to choose between them. However, he warns that excessive prudence or indecision can lead us to miss out on both possibilities, leaving us in a state of perpetual limbo.At first glance, Johnson's quote may appear straightforward in its meaning. It reminds us that life presents us with choices, and sometimes we have to sacrifice one thing in order to attain another. It speaks of the limited resources available to us and the consequential need to prioritize. In essence, it encourages us to be mindful of our decisions and to recognize the consequences of missed opportunities.However, diving deeper into this quote unveils an intriguing philosophical concept – the notion of the "golden mean." Aristotle, a Greek philosopher, introduced the concept of the golden mean as a balance or midpoint between extremes. This notion suggests that optimal decision-making lies not in the extremes but in striking a harmonious balance between opposing choices. Johnson's quote resonates with this concept, as it reflects the consequences of excessive prudence and the failure to seize either extreme.To better comprehend the significance of this assumption, consider the analogy of a tightrope walker. Imagine a person walking along a tightrope, stretched between two tall buildings. On either side, there are two platforms, each representing a dichotomous good, such as love and ambition. The walker is faced with the difficult task of choosing which platform to step onto. Johnson warns that by being overly cautious, the walker may find themselves unable to reach either destination, left suspended in the middle, neither fully committed nor fully satisfied.This analogy portrays the delicate balancing act between opposing goods that Johnson's quote alludes to. To illustrate this concept further, let's explore a hypothetical scenario where a person must make a difficult decision between career advancement and personal relationships. Both choices present valuable goods, but each comes with a unique set of sacrifices. A person may choose to prioritize their career aspirations, investing time and energy in achieving professional success, but risk neglecting personal connections and happiness. Similarly, one may prioritize personal relationships, nurturing and cherishing loved ones, but possibly sacrificing career growth and financial stability.In this scenario, if one were to overemphasize prudence, attempting to keep one foot on each platform, they would likely find themselves distant from both goals. The pursuit of career success may become half-hearted, lacking the necessary dedication and focus to reach one's full potential. Simultaneously, personal relationships may be undermined by a lack of attention and commitment, leaving one feeling unfulfilled on both fronts.This philosophical concept emphasized by Johnson's quote prompts us to reevaluate our decision-making processes. It encourages us to seek a balance between opposing choices rather than becoming paralyzed by indecision or fear of missing out. The realization that we cannot have it all implies that we must carefully weigh the costs and benefits of each option, striving for a moderate approach that maximizes our chances of reaching a satisfactory outcome.To conclude, Samuel Johnson's quote holds essential insights into the challenges of decision-making and the dangers of excessive prudence. It urges us to consider the consequences of wavering between opposing goods without fully committing to either. By introducing the concept of the golden mean, we are reminded of the importance of striking a harmonious balance rather than being immobilized by the fear of making the wrong choice. When faced with mutually exclusive options, Johnson's wisdom reminds us to approach decisions thoughtfully, aiming to achieve a satisfying compromise that acknowledges the trade-offs while moving us closer to our desired outcome.