Regarding the relationship between knowledge and virtue, as I understand it, a Roman belief was that knowledge created virtue, which is a noble sentiment but, I believe, not exactly true. I can think of many knowledgeable people (educated at least) who lack virtue such as Donald Trump who is completely devoid of virtue, yet presumable has a degree in economics. I therefore believe that the tendency to virtue is a latent quality that may be enhanced and intensified through the acquisition of knowledge. As with other latent abilities; such as artistic, musical, or athletic ability, we are limited by our latent (inborn) potential for attaining virtue which like all talents is developed through experience/practice/work.
Interesting point - Perhaps we have to qualify education? Or manner of education. There are plenty of ways folks are 'educated' today where they are simply told what to think. ie, This is how economics works, there is only one way of economics, etc. A proper education would be to encourage how to think. Ie. Investigate the differences between say Keynesian and Austrian economics and apply how they would function in different cultures. It makes me think of the Plutarch quote: “the mind is not a vessel that needs filling, but wood that needs igniting.”
Did I miss the Rationality discussion. The what, where, when questions have to be answered before Virtue would be discussed. The one cannot exist without the other. Developing Rationality seems to me to lead to Virtue. Now the living with Nature, I think we must recognize the synthetic world we have created for ourselves. The closest we can get to being natural we would have to reject most things that we need for everyday living. Most of the shelters we live in will be standing after many other occupants. Naturally. The synthetic lives we lead being integrated with each other. The idea that one species of a planet would be provided with the resources to destroy that planet leaves me to question our understanding of Rationality.
Excellent point for the need of rationality in the discussion. I think @agnusde2017 comment below illustrates a horrific path where ethics without reasoning is pursued.
As you said, virtue is defined as morality- morality as we all know is subjective. Virtues can itself become a vice, particularly when demanding our belief in morality/virtue onto another. A natural phenomenon we all have, are vices. Virtues must be be brought about with cognitive reasoning and thinking.
Virtues are universal. Virtues give us a roadmap for how to think and how to behave. Notice, I stated "how to think" because our thoughts precede our actions. Courage, Self-Control, Wisdom and Justice are universal. Does a tribe in a remote part have these virtues? Yes, but they might be defined differently within their unique culture.
It is interesting to compare how different the virtues of Stoicism are compared to say... Christianity. I wonder if specific virtues are held up higher in some cultures over others? ie, is Self control more important than courage?
I enjoy simply exploring "authenticity". Whatever you believe, go more deeply into it and see where it takes you! Are you a nihilist? Go for it! Stop being lukewarm! An evangelical Christian? Run with it! Take everything to its logical extremes and quit sittin' on the fence :)
In this way, you force yourself to realize the extreme JOY that your religion offers OR the extreme pain. Thus, you can be fully informed from an experiential sense and not simply be unconsciously defending your "tribal" or inherited nominal belief system.
In this sense, I think "authenticity" is a great virtue for everyone.
I think you are right that there is a lot of importance in 'authenticity' and ironically, it's one of those things you can't 'hack'. Being true to yourself is incredibly important.
I was speaking in broad terms and I think you are absolutely right, we need to qualify what we mean by "education". In the past half century Western education/culture has moved away from the humanities in favor of STEM (science, technology, engineering, Math). so much so that we are now living in a technocracy driven by gross materialism and self-gratification. Is it any wonder then that virtue is going out of style?
Today's virtue is humanistic ethics based on a neuroscience explanation of how all thoughts are intertwined with all emotions that have been learned since babyhood! So, the job of an adult is to unravel the long-term memories of childhood from the new daily memories based upon adult thoughts and feelings! The goal of leading a good life depends upon one's rational and logical ability to distinguish mythical cultural intuitive beliefs from rational personal beliefs based on the knowledge of the reality of nature learned from using the scientific method!
Unfortunately, notions of “virtue” and “ethics” and “morality” have become so weighted and confused with the ideas of “good/bad” and “right/wrong,” that it becomes difficult to untangle them, emancipate them from thousands of years of cultural and religious baggage, and, most importantly, talk about them socially without triggering a fight-or-flight reaction within 30 seconds. Happily, as with almost everything, the Greeks give us a way through. If we point our compass toward Eudaimonia - “flourishing” - and get there through Arete - “excellence” (don’t define it as “virtue”…) - and realize Arete through building up and actualizing Wisdom, Courage, Temperance, and Justice: well, that’s a good life. And the whole apparatus is there and accessible without recourse to “moralistic” terminology. It’s a framing that I have found liberating.
I think you are right by using 'neutral' (by today's standard) terms, it helps propel the conversation further. Another term I love using in discussion is 'telos' - by establishing a common goal from the onsite, the discussion can be cooperative rather than competitive.
Perhaps virtue is being able to "put yourself into another's shoes." In "To Kill a Mockingbird", Atticus Finch said "sometimes you have to get inside another man's skin, and crawl around for a while." Empathy and Compassion! Would YOU be hurt if somebody said or did that to YOU?
I've always been a fan of the "Golden Rule" - however there is a regular 'loophole' that makes it not universal. It relies on the premise that the individual doesn't want to be hurt in the first place, which sadly isn't always the case.
I think at some point disputations or discourses regarding knowledge and virtue, if they do not cross over into an ethereal idealism, mus complete the circle by returning to the questions posed by Socrates at the beginning of the Meno. Unfortunately answers are sot so succinctly generated or propounded as the questions themselves. 2000 years after Socrates, Plato and Aristotle Hume and Kant, betting on the respective outcomes of their epistemological coin tosses, come to separate and distinct conclusions which bridge their opposing but irreducible gaps in logic.
In our own time we have seen the dethroning of the eudaimonistic under the advance of the rule of conscience, a shaky but, I suppose, necessary fabrication in the construct of freedom. Kierkegaard dredged up the tale of Abraham and Isaac, and rationalized Abraham's willingness to murder his son under the cogency of a so-called teleological suspension of the ethical.
But there is another such ethical suspension recorded in Judges: Jephthah's sacrifice of his daughter to fulfill his pledge to the Lord for victory over the Ammonites. For Jephtha no other sacrifice came along, and he has been the recipient of subsequent opprobrium and praise.
When I was a student I worked at a State mental hospital where there was a black patient who suffered under the terrible burden of being the only individual who knew that their was a conspiracy of white vampires to turn the black race. Our vampire slayer had recognized that his 3 year old niece had been turned. Of course he had to kill her -- another triumph of conscience and the teleological suspension of the ethical.
What a tragic, tragic story... and a horrific illustration for the need for rationality in virtue. I think you also touch on some of the interesting and essential differences in morality from the perspective of different cultures - in the Judaeo-Christian sense, is guilt can occur without action, whereas in the ancient world, many times it would have been shame, only where action (as well as recognition) of the immoral occurs.
Regarding the relationship between knowledge and virtue, as I understand it, a Roman belief was that knowledge created virtue, which is a noble sentiment but, I believe, not exactly true. I can think of many knowledgeable people (educated at least) who lack virtue such as Donald Trump who is completely devoid of virtue, yet presumable has a degree in economics. I therefore believe that the tendency to virtue is a latent quality that may be enhanced and intensified through the acquisition of knowledge. As with other latent abilities; such as artistic, musical, or athletic ability, we are limited by our latent (inborn) potential for attaining virtue which like all talents is developed through experience/practice/work.
Interesting point - Perhaps we have to qualify education? Or manner of education. There are plenty of ways folks are 'educated' today where they are simply told what to think. ie, This is how economics works, there is only one way of economics, etc. A proper education would be to encourage how to think. Ie. Investigate the differences between say Keynesian and Austrian economics and apply how they would function in different cultures. It makes me think of the Plutarch quote: “the mind is not a vessel that needs filling, but wood that needs igniting.”
Did I miss the Rationality discussion. The what, where, when questions have to be answered before Virtue would be discussed. The one cannot exist without the other. Developing Rationality seems to me to lead to Virtue. Now the living with Nature, I think we must recognize the synthetic world we have created for ourselves. The closest we can get to being natural we would have to reject most things that we need for everyday living. Most of the shelters we live in will be standing after many other occupants. Naturally. The synthetic lives we lead being integrated with each other. The idea that one species of a planet would be provided with the resources to destroy that planet leaves me to question our understanding of Rationality.
Excellent point for the need of rationality in the discussion. I think @agnusde2017 comment below illustrates a horrific path where ethics without reasoning is pursued.
Excellent analysis on virtue both past and present. Thank you
As you said, virtue is defined as morality- morality as we all know is subjective. Virtues can itself become a vice, particularly when demanding our belief in morality/virtue onto another. A natural phenomenon we all have, are vices. Virtues must be be brought about with cognitive reasoning and thinking.
Virtues are universal. Virtues give us a roadmap for how to think and how to behave. Notice, I stated "how to think" because our thoughts precede our actions. Courage, Self-Control, Wisdom and Justice are universal. Does a tribe in a remote part have these virtues? Yes, but they might be defined differently within their unique culture.
It is interesting to compare how different the virtues of Stoicism are compared to say... Christianity. I wonder if specific virtues are held up higher in some cultures over others? ie, is Self control more important than courage?
I enjoy simply exploring "authenticity". Whatever you believe, go more deeply into it and see where it takes you! Are you a nihilist? Go for it! Stop being lukewarm! An evangelical Christian? Run with it! Take everything to its logical extremes and quit sittin' on the fence :)
In this way, you force yourself to realize the extreme JOY that your religion offers OR the extreme pain. Thus, you can be fully informed from an experiential sense and not simply be unconsciously defending your "tribal" or inherited nominal belief system.
In this sense, I think "authenticity" is a great virtue for everyone.
I think you are right that there is a lot of importance in 'authenticity' and ironically, it's one of those things you can't 'hack'. Being true to yourself is incredibly important.
I was speaking in broad terms and I think you are absolutely right, we need to qualify what we mean by "education". In the past half century Western education/culture has moved away from the humanities in favor of STEM (science, technology, engineering, Math). so much so that we are now living in a technocracy driven by gross materialism and self-gratification. Is it any wonder then that virtue is going out of style?
Okay - we've got a plan then! First task to reinvigorating Virtue: Seek knowledge through meaningful education ;-)
Today's virtue is humanistic ethics based on a neuroscience explanation of how all thoughts are intertwined with all emotions that have been learned since babyhood! So, the job of an adult is to unravel the long-term memories of childhood from the new daily memories based upon adult thoughts and feelings! The goal of leading a good life depends upon one's rational and logical ability to distinguish mythical cultural intuitive beliefs from rational personal beliefs based on the knowledge of the reality of nature learned from using the scientific method!
Unfortunately, notions of “virtue” and “ethics” and “morality” have become so weighted and confused with the ideas of “good/bad” and “right/wrong,” that it becomes difficult to untangle them, emancipate them from thousands of years of cultural and religious baggage, and, most importantly, talk about them socially without triggering a fight-or-flight reaction within 30 seconds. Happily, as with almost everything, the Greeks give us a way through. If we point our compass toward Eudaimonia - “flourishing” - and get there through Arete - “excellence” (don’t define it as “virtue”…) - and realize Arete through building up and actualizing Wisdom, Courage, Temperance, and Justice: well, that’s a good life. And the whole apparatus is there and accessible without recourse to “moralistic” terminology. It’s a framing that I have found liberating.
I think you are right by using 'neutral' (by today's standard) terms, it helps propel the conversation further. Another term I love using in discussion is 'telos' - by establishing a common goal from the onsite, the discussion can be cooperative rather than competitive.
Perhaps virtue is being able to "put yourself into another's shoes." In "To Kill a Mockingbird", Atticus Finch said "sometimes you have to get inside another man's skin, and crawl around for a while." Empathy and Compassion! Would YOU be hurt if somebody said or did that to YOU?
I've always been a fan of the "Golden Rule" - however there is a regular 'loophole' that makes it not universal. It relies on the premise that the individual doesn't want to be hurt in the first place, which sadly isn't always the case.
I think at some point disputations or discourses regarding knowledge and virtue, if they do not cross over into an ethereal idealism, mus complete the circle by returning to the questions posed by Socrates at the beginning of the Meno. Unfortunately answers are sot so succinctly generated or propounded as the questions themselves. 2000 years after Socrates, Plato and Aristotle Hume and Kant, betting on the respective outcomes of their epistemological coin tosses, come to separate and distinct conclusions which bridge their opposing but irreducible gaps in logic.
In our own time we have seen the dethroning of the eudaimonistic under the advance of the rule of conscience, a shaky but, I suppose, necessary fabrication in the construct of freedom. Kierkegaard dredged up the tale of Abraham and Isaac, and rationalized Abraham's willingness to murder his son under the cogency of a so-called teleological suspension of the ethical.
But there is another such ethical suspension recorded in Judges: Jephthah's sacrifice of his daughter to fulfill his pledge to the Lord for victory over the Ammonites. For Jephtha no other sacrifice came along, and he has been the recipient of subsequent opprobrium and praise.
When I was a student I worked at a State mental hospital where there was a black patient who suffered under the terrible burden of being the only individual who knew that their was a conspiracy of white vampires to turn the black race. Our vampire slayer had recognized that his 3 year old niece had been turned. Of course he had to kill her -- another triumph of conscience and the teleological suspension of the ethical.
What a tragic, tragic story... and a horrific illustration for the need for rationality in virtue. I think you also touch on some of the interesting and essential differences in morality from the perspective of different cultures - in the Judaeo-Christian sense, is guilt can occur without action, whereas in the ancient world, many times it would have been shame, only where action (as well as recognition) of the immoral occurs.