Difference between Buddhism and Aristotelian "middle-way"?

This thought occurred to me after reading the following question and top answer: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/5249/how-to-refute-the-idea-that-buddhism-might-be-actually-too-extreme The questioner thinks the logical conclusion of Buddhism is to abandon all worldly goods, including the family, resulting in the elimination of the human race. > Let's say if this is the appropriate thing to do, and everybody in the > world does that, then the world, in 100 years or 200 years, will not > have human beings any more (because if no marriage and no children, > then there will be no new life on earth, while the existing people > pass away). I can't say that it will be "good" if on earth, there is > no more human beings, but lions, wolves, foxes, rabbits, and other > animals remain on earth. The answerer stated this is taking Buddhism to the extreme, and rather Buddhism is to avoid extremes and to take the middle path. > Did Buddha teach "self-sacrifice"? No, he taught middle-way: by > looking after ourselves we look after others, by looking after others > we look after ourselves. However, this is exactly what Aristotle said in his definition of virtue. He defines virtue as the mean between extremes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_mean_(philosophy)#Aristotle > 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 Is there any essential difference between Aristotle's definition of virtue and what Buddhism teaches? It seems there is only a difference in details, how specifically Buddhism teaches to seek the middle way, but the overarching principle is the same. Or are there extremes in Buddhism's teaching?