Like the Great Learning, it is now part of the Records of Rites. It is said to be a composition by Confucius’ grandson Kong Ji (孔伋), called Zisi (子思).

The purpose of this small, 33-chapter book is to demonstrate the usefulness of a golden way to gain perfect virtue. It focuses on the “way” (dào, 道) that is prescribed by a heavenly mandate not only to the ruler but to everyone. To follow these heavenly instructions by learning and teaching will automatically result in a Confucian virtue. Because Heaven has laid down what is the way to perfect virtue, it is not that difficult to follow the steps of the holy rulers of old if one only knows what is the right way.

Chan (1963: unpaginated) in an English translation of the Doctrine, renders “Mean” as an “Equilibrium” identified as “Harmony”:

While there are no stirrings of pleasure, anger, sorrow, or joy, the mind may be said to be in the state of Equilibrium. When those feelings have been stirred, and they act in their due degree, there ensues what may be called the state of Harmony. This Equilibrium is the great root from which grow all the human actings in the world, and this Harmony is the universal path which they all should pursue.[1]

In the Eudemian Ethics, Aristotle writes on the virtues. His constant phrase is, “… is the Middle state between …”. His psychology of the soul and its virtues is based on the golden mean between the extremes. In the Politics, Aristotle criticizes the Spartan Polity by critiquing the disproportionate elements of the constitution; e.g., they trained the men and not the women, and they trained for war but not peace. This disharmony produced difficulties which he elaborates on in his work.

However, both of these are predated by the lost works of that not so great and unlamented early Ionian Greek philosopher, Mediocrates.

I quote from his pupil, Playdoh’s, lost work, The Mediocrat*:

If I could see the beauty of the ashtray and its butts,
If I could but know the truth of dirty coffee cups,
Oh, blessed Mediocrates, at your alter I will pray,
reveal to me your mysteries, teach me to love what’s grey.

*(I’ve been pretty loose with updating the translation and imagery).

For me, there is no relationship between these two philosophies. Aristotle – a great thinker in his own right, made truth-claims all the time. Taoism does not claim to be correct. It simply is.

Rico – this has nothing to do with Taoism and is lifted (uncredited) from Wikipedia
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDoctrine_of_the_Mean&ei=a7i0SND-L5D8Mt3uqMwI&usg=AFQjCNFZ7d136jYk9pIon6qU7dhr2BEkiw&sig2=yB7qO5-HizX90u_QdFw7WQ

Tao itself could I suppose be thought of as balance, in that everything but Tao has its opposite. Night and day, hot and cold, good and bad. Each exists only relative to the other.

But there for me (and I claim no knowledge of Aristotle) the similarity ends. For Taoism is about recognising the subjectiveness of the Universe that surrounds us more than steering a way between extremes. Recognising that each and every element, including humans, has its own nature. And that acting in harmony with that nature is the Way to personal peace and happiness.

One might think that reading about the Taoist principle of wu wei it is about ‘doing without doing’ or steering a path of equilibrium. But my understanding of it is that it is only ‘equilibrium’ with Tao that is sought. Personal actions may, in certain circumstances, appear as quite extreme to the onlooker. A master may be calm in situations where others are full of action. Or s/he may explode with action when it is least expected.

The key thing is that although these actions may appear extreme to observers, they will always be exactly what is necessary for the time and circumstances. A master always knows when to act and when not to act. However it may appear to others.

Apologies for the over long answer. Hopefully one of my contacts can do better.
.