"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"
About this Quote
Johnson is taking a wrecking ball to the polite fiction that “prudence” is always a virtue. The line turns moral life into a physical problem: two desirable “goods” sit on opposite sides, and the cautious person, terrified of choosing wrong, threads the middle so safely that they end up touching nothing. It’s a ruthlessly economical metaphor for a certain British pathology Johnson knew well in the 18th-century world of patronage, pamphlets, and reputation: the cultivated habit of hedging until your convictions become invisible.
The key trick is how he reframes failure. You don’t miss out because you were reckless; you miss out because you were careful in the wrong way. “Too much prudence” isn’t wisdom, it’s self-protection masquerading as judgment. Johnson’s subtext is psychological before it’s ethical: the over-prudent mind wants to avoid loss more than it wants to achieve good, so it chooses distance as a strategy. That distance feels like safety, but it’s also a refusal of consequence.
Contextually, it sits comfortably in Johnson’s moral essays and his suspicion of fashionable rationality. Enlightenment culture prized moderation and balance; Johnson, never impressed by slogans, reminds readers that moderation can become cowardice, and “balance” can become a way to evade commitment. The sentence warns that some conflicts are structured so that neutrality is not a third option, just a slower kind of defeat.
The key trick is how he reframes failure. You don’t miss out because you were reckless; you miss out because you were careful in the wrong way. “Too much prudence” isn’t wisdom, it’s self-protection masquerading as judgment. Johnson’s subtext is psychological before it’s ethical: the over-prudent mind wants to avoid loss more than it wants to achieve good, so it chooses distance as a strategy. That distance feels like safety, but it’s also a refusal of consequence.
Contextually, it sits comfortably in Johnson’s moral essays and his suspicion of fashionable rationality. Enlightenment culture prized moderation and balance; Johnson, never impressed by slogans, reminds readers that moderation can become cowardice, and “balance” can become a way to evade commitment. The sentence warns that some conflicts are structured so that neutrality is not a third option, just a slower kind of defeat.
Quote Details
| Topic | Decision-Making |
|---|
More Quotes by Samuel
Add to List










