Ma`rifat

Aristotle's theory of moderation, as one of the most famous criteria of value, has been favored by many philosophers, especially Muslim scholars. The question is whether this theory has presented a standard free from weaknesses? How does it compare to the theory of divine nearness? Does the theory of divine nearness have any advantages compared to the theory of moderation? Using a descriptive-analytical method and a library method, this paper has answered the questions. Aristotle's theory of moderation seems to be a good standard in terms of its supernatural realism, emphasis on virtue, and its having narrative support. However, it has serious weaknesses in aspects such as determining the ultimate goal, the difficulty of identifying the internal criterion, insufficient evidence to prove the theory of moderation, the difficulties in relying on the moral agent, and the difficulty of identifying the middle ground. Meanwhile, the theory of divine nearness, as a suitable alternative, has been proven in a logical and unmistakable manner, and while it has all the advantages of Aristotle's theory, it is also free from its weaknesses.