Monthly Archives: September 2026

Lodge: Plato’s Theory of Ethics

In 1928 Rupert Lodge published Plato’s Theory of Ethics in the International Library of Psychology, Philosophy, and Scientific Method, edited by C.K. Ogden. Included with Lodge in the Library were such leading edge figures at the time as G.E. Moore, Ludwig Wittgenstein, C.G. Jung, I.A. Richards, Alfred Adler, C.S. Peirce, T.E. Hulme, E.A. Burtt, Bruno Malinowski, Bertrand Russell. and Jean Piaget. Rich company!1

The title page of Plato’s Theory of Ethics introduces him as ‘Professor of Logic and History of Philosophy in the University of Manitoba, and Visiting Lecturer in Philosophy at Harvard University’. Lodge held his visiting lectureship at Harvard in that same year of 1928 in which Plato’s Theory of Ethics was published. He had been at Harvard in 1926 at the sixth international congress of philosophy in his capacity as the president that year of the western division of the APA. He presented a paper at the congress on ‘On a recent hypothesis concerning the Platonic Socrates‘ on a panel with W.D. Ross (representing John Burnet, who was ill), Léon Robin, and Paul Shorey. Presumably Lodge’s invitation to Harvard in 1928 resulted from a good impression made by him there in 1926.

Two years years after the publication of Lodge’s book in Ogden’s ‘International Library’ , McLuhan would take the year-long Introduction to Philosophy course at the University of Manitoba which was taught by Lodge in the first semester (classical Philosophy, concentrating on Plato) and Henry Wright in the second (modern Philosophy and Psychology).2

Wright’s course included his latest book, The Moral Standards of Democracy from 1925, perhaps as a set text, perhaps as a background reference. In any case, McLuhan owned the book and studied it carefully. It is preserved, ‘heavily annotated’, in his working library at the University of Toronto.3

Lodge’s course must have included his latest book in some way as well, although Plato’s Theory of Ethics is not found in McLuhan’s library at UT. Perhaps he never found an inexpensive used copy, as he did with Wright’s Moral Standards.4 But because McLuhan’s relation with Lodge was even closer than it was with Wright, there can be little doubt that he read, and presumably repeatedly read, Lodge’s book. For McLuhan must have quickly realized how exceptional it was, and how potentially important to him personally it was, that a scholar of Lodge’s caliber and international reputation was teaching in Winnipeg.5

For further on Plato’s Theory of Ethics, see Lodge on Plato’s ‘mean’. It seems plain that Plato’s ‘mean’, as articulated by Lodge, is what became McLuhan’s ‘medium’ in its important, but little referenced, sense of ‘mediating middle’.

  1. Three more books on Plato by Lodge appeared in the same famous series: Plato’s Theory of Education (1947), Plato’s Theory of Art (1953) and The Philosophy of Plato (1956). ↩
  2. See Lodge and Wright and Henry Wright on Winnipeg in 1920. ↩
  3. See Henry Wilkes Wright and Henry Wilkes Wright 2. ↩
  4. Wright’s title, The Moral Standards of Democracy, should be compared to the title and subtitle of Lodge’s book: Plato’s Theory of Ethics — The Moral Criterion and the Highest Good. The compatibility of Lodge and Wright in co-teaching the entrance course to all subsequent philosophy and psychology courses at UM may be seen in the duplication of ‘moral’ in the titles of their books. ↩
  5. See W.O. Mitchell on Rupert Lodge for Mitchell’s assessment of Lodge and for the life-changing influence of Lodge on him. ↩

Lodge on Plato’s ‘mean’

Plato’s Theory of Ethics by McLuhan’s mentor at the University of Manitoba, Rupert Lodge, must have been read by him, closely, in the early 1930s. There can be little doubt that what must have been largely background meditation on Plato’s ‘mean’, as set out by Lodge, is what eventuated in McLuhan’s ‘medium’ 25 years in the future.

Here are passages in page order from Plato’s Theory of Ethics on the ‘mean’:

Disease, then, is viewed by Plato as an upsetting of the balance, a disturbance of the mean or due proportion which holds the body together. 23

The body is (…) a whole, a single organism to the life of which each element contributes its part. It is held together by the “limit”, “mean”, or principle of proportion, with a unity resembling that of a musical composition. 23-34

The most that we can safely infer from Plato’s hints and metaphors is that excellence of memory is analogous to excellence of bodily condition generally, and depends upon the proper organization of the physiological factors concerned — i.e. upon the presence of order, law, and the “mean’’ and upon the absence of excess… 36

not only too little (…) but also too much is an evil, and (…) as is obvious in the case of eating and drinking (…) the mean state, something between the two extremes represents what is best 388-389

The avoidance of excess in any direction, and the seeking of the middle pathway as a guide through life is formulated by tragedian and historian long before Plato taught the doctrine of the “limit” and Aristotle the doctrine of the ‘‘mean” as expressing the secret essence of all excellence. To the Hellenic mind, this saying formulated that characteristic of sophrosyne which we call ‘‘moderation in all things” and temperance thus easily took on some of the attributes of a supreme good. 412

In many contexts (…) the ‘‘mean” and the “limit,” are highly praised as principles which make art and conduct valuable, and in a few contexts they are definitely stated to be the highest good. This is, of course, especially true in the Philebus, but the Laws are full of such contexts, and they are found scattered up and down all the later Dialogues, including the Republic. In order to obtain a concrete idea of what is to be understood by this term, we shall therefore deal with the whole field investigated in these later Dialogues, and shall inquire what is meant by “the mean” in the world studied by natural science, in medical science and art, in the art of music, and in human conduct. From such an investigation we should be able to discover the general sense of the term, and in particular to discover why it is identified with the highest good. 442

the mind applies its own fundamental principle of the “limit” or ‘‘mean” to an otherwise unlimited and chaotic “extension” and “motion”. The principles and details of the theoretical universe thus constructed derive their whole significance from the principle of the “mean”. 442

What occurs in the absence of the mean? (…) The various elements refuse to combine, and fight with one another. 444

absence of the mean is synonymous with disintegration, chaos, not-being, while the presence of the mean signifies proportion, law, order, control, and reason. 445

both artist and philosopher are guided throughout by the principle of the mean. It is this principle which [in music] introduces unity, law, and order into the individual notes, the individual scales, the individual rhythms, and the composition as a whole (…) In what follows [from this this in theory], the artist does not need to understand; but it is fully [to be] apprehended by the philosopher. It is because the principle of the mean [in art] is also the principle of order (…) in the actual cosmos 453

The “idea” [= manifestation] represents the application of the principle of the mean or limit to a specific field of experience, so that to observe the mean is to follow the principle of the idea (…) that (…) has (…) a metaphysical basis (…) formed upon the objective principle of ultimate reality. 454

when it is stated that “the mean” is the highest good, what is meant is that the principle of the idea is the source of all idealization, of all elevation of fact to value, in a word, that the principle of the mean is identical with the principle of the (…) idea of good  455