Moral Virtue as the Mean

Aristotle argues that moral virtue lies at the median between excess and deficiency relative to the individual. With each virtue comes two vices with one being a lack of the virtue and the other too much of the virtue (1108b.15). The two vices are opposites of each other and also opposed to the virtue itself. All three form a spectrum on which each individual falls at their own place. The position where one falls on the spectrum determines which direction the person should aim to attain virtue. If one falls closer to recklessness then they should aim toward cowardice. If one lies closer to cowardice then they should aim at recklessness. It is interesting that Aristotle believes one should aim at the excess or deficiency opposite of where we lie in order to attain virtue. 

One would think that in order to achieve courage as a virtue, one should aim at courage. But Aristotle says we need to aim past the virtue we want to acquire. By doing this, we will move along the spectrum and hit the median. If you aim at the virtue itself, then you will only move closer to the median, but never reach the end goal until a much longer time. By aiming past the median you can reach it faster then aim at the other opposite end so that you do not go too far past the median. This is because we often think of things relative to our own disposition. A cowardly man will view a courageous man as reckless and vice versa. Thus, we ought to aim at what appears to us to be the extreme, when in fact it might be the virtue itself. At some point, however, I feel that you must aim at the virtue when you think you are close. This leaves the question of how do you know when you are close to the median?

-BaylorBear16

Intellectual and Moral Virtue

Aristotle divides the soul into multiple parts such as the vegetative, appetitive, and rational parts. The vegetative part has to do with things out of our control and yet are necessary. This includes nutrition and growth, which can be seen in all living things from plants to humans. The appetitive part of the soul has to do with our desires and emotions. However, it also takes part in reason and is the source of moral virtue. The rational part of the soul is the intellect, where reason gives rise to intellectual virtues. This rational part of the soul is what separates humans from animals. Aristotle believes the intellectual virtues and moral virtues are completely separate groups of virtue. Thus, he argues that they come about through different methods. The intellectual virtues are transmitted or taught from one to another. The moral virtues are developed through habituation and practice.

 I understand the distinction that Aristotle is making, however, I feel that teaching and habituation are not so isolated to a specific group of virtues. Although they may apply more to one set of virtue than another, it seems that both teaching and practice play a role in both sets. As children we often look to our parents as examples of moral virtue and in a way they teach us moral virtues, which we must go practice on our own. With intellectual virtues such as practical wisdom, there is some requirement for an experienced teacher to show us what we cannot know by ourselves. Yet there seems to be some element of habituation or practice involved in practical wisdom as well. Through many experiences of having to discern right decisions to make, we can better improve our practical wisdom. This is a form of practice and not just learning from a teacher. Therefore, intellectual virtue and moral virtue may be brought about more clearly through either habituation or teaching, but it appears that some mixture of the two is necessary as well. What do you think about the distinction that Aristotle argues for?

-BaylorBear16

Nicomachean Ethics Book 1

Aristotle understands that man seeks to be happy in this life and believes that the way to happiness is by achieving the highest good. This highest good is an activity of the soul in line with virtue or excellence by use of the rational part of the soul (1098a.10-15). What separates this highest good from other external goods and bodily goods is that this good is self sufficient and fully satisfying. With worldly goods, we are never satisfied and consistently look to more. With bodily goods they are not self sufficient and require a healthy properly functioning body to accomplish them. Thus, I agree with Aristotle that the highest good must take part in the soul which is above this worldly life. This activity of the soul is in some ways a perfecting of the soul as the activities are virtuous in pursuit of excellence. This idea of the highest good and perfection of one's self can be seen in the Christian tradition through beatitude.

Additionally, there is an element of balance or temperance within the happy man's life and actions. The happy man is not fickle or changeable as he does not become miserable at each downturn of fortune, nor does he easily become overwhelmed with joy at every positive thing (1101a.5-15). Lady fortune has no grip over the happy man, because he realizes that happiness is achievable by his own activity and does not put all of his trust in chance. This type of behavior refers to the use of reason over the sensible appetites of the soul, which are part of the temporary goods of this life. Aristotle seems correct about the important role reason plays, but does not make the error of placing all happiness on reason alone. Instead, Aristotle uses reason as a guide when using other parts of the soul so that we can flourish as human beings as particular creatures with a rational capacity. Can the highest good lie within our worldly lives or is it something that extends beyond this life?

-BaylorBear16

Plato's Symposium 2

In class we discussed briefly Plato's theory of forms where the good consisted in all of these different universal concepts such as piety, wisdom, friendship, temperance, justice, and beauty. The soul knows the good and then descends to the body after it loses its wings forgetting the truth of the good. By participating in these different things, we can come to know the good better so that we can share it with others and return to the good as well. Some think that all of these things act as separate parts of the good and others say each one is the good itself. I think that both of these statements are correct and do not have to be opposed to each other.

It seems that all of these universal concepts are attached to the good in some way because we pursue them even in our everyday life. They bring us closer to the good and help orient ourselves out of the cave. In a way these things are the good, but by themselves we can only get a good understanding of a portion of the good. We are each interested in different parts and this part can draw us into the good so that we develop a desire to expand our knowledge of the good to other forms as well. In this way the different forms act as parts to makeup the good. Therefore, it seems like the different forms act both as parts of a whole, but also as the whole itself to the interested individual so that they may explore the good in its entirety. To some extent, God is much like the good and how we interact with it. We understand parts of God and this limited knowledge spurs us on to learn more about God by instilling in us a desire. Do you think Plato's forms can be interpreted in a sense as both parts and whole together?

-BaylorBear16

Plato's Symposium 1

One of the more interesting lines in Plato's Symposium that caught my eye was when Diotima claims "love is wanting to possess the good forever" (206B). From this possessing of the good comes forth eternal happiness. Plato taps into an intrinsic desire that is universal across humanity as we constantly find ourselves aiming for happiness. This is one of the prime reasons, if not the only reason, for doing the activities that we pursue. However, this happiness is not found in the material created goods of this world, but lies in the good which is something far greater and divine. Through Diotima, Plato is arguing that there is in a sense an ultimate end, which humans pursue or are inclined to pursue that extends beyond this life. This ultimate end is the good, and possession of the good is love. By practicing true love for others and ourselves we can come closer to the good and obtain happiness.

In one way, I agree with Plato and think he is on the right track. The good can be seen as God and the ultimate end is communion with God or beatitude. This intellectual vision of God and unity with him in heaven is his true love for us coming to fruition. At the same time our free will allows us to choose to love God or not. Thus, true love is wanting to participate in the good or God through divine activity. However, love in this life is only a glimpse of the love God has for us and is only a part of the good despite sharing the same name as true love. As long as we recognize that love in this life is not the final end, then this lowered form of love is a good thing. It acts as an antecedent to the beatitude and perfect happiness that we seek by giving us a taste of the good. Additionally, one must be careful in determining the object of love as this same good can be corrupted to turn our hearts away from God and true love. Thus, there are people who love money, material objects, power, glory, and sex as their ultimate end which will always leave them unsatisfied and wanting more. If love plays a central role in pursuing the good, can it equally play a major role in turning away from the good?

-BaylorBear16

Plato's Apology

Plato's Apology holds warnings that still hold true to this day and continue to be applicable to the events of the time. When Socrates asks the craftsmen, poets, and politicians to share their "wisdom" it becomes apparent that they know very little of anything that extends beyond their own profession. Some do not even know their own job. Yet they live their lives and make decisions as if they do know these things. This same issue can be found among the majority of people in America today. Sometimes when I am scrolling through Facebook, I'll come across one of those controversial posts about some issue and see the relentless stream of comments with each person giving their opinion on the matter. What always astounds me is the ridiculous amount of misinformation found in the comments from both sides of the isle. Thousands of comments from thousands of people who claim to know the answer, the truth of the matter, when really they do not even understand the issue themselves. Many in our society have been taught that their opinion is just as good as anybody else's so much so that most disregard the necessity for thorough research. Additionally, we have become addicted to the instant gratification of our desires. So many seek to find the quickest route to an answer, rather than go through the process of educating themselves. Education and research take too much time and so they would rather have someone tell them the answer. Most do not understand the arguments and foundations for their own beliefs, but at the same time believe they have equal authority to speak on such matters. The scariest part is that these same people believe they have done the research or have put in the hard work to find the truth.

The greatness of Socrates is that he stopped these very individuals and forced them to explain their beliefs. His Socratic method turned the individual in on themselves so that they might realize the gravity of their erred judgment. In a way he gave them the gift of wisdom through humility. This is an invaluable lesson that we should apply to ourselves. It is good to look in the mirror once and a while and know who you are. Although Socrates is not around anymore to question us, we have Plato's account to remind us of the duty to our own self to pursue the truth, know what we believe, and why we believe it with substantial arguments. What are some other qualities besides humility and thorough inquiry that Socrates gives us in order to better attain wisdom?

-BaylorBear16

The Allegory of the Cave

There were several things that really stood out to me in Plato's Allegory. The first is how different Plato's topics and ideas are compared to all of the previous Greek philosophers we have studied. Their ideas focus on the makeup and origin of the objective natural world and immaterial world. Plato's primary concern in this allegory is the improvement and betterment of man's soul by reorienting it towards the good. This is radically different and shifts the attention away from the gods of the Homeric tradition and towards something greater which contains the good. It is more applicable to the every day lives of the reader and shares valuable wisdom that transcends time and culture. Even readers today can still gain wisdom of how to act and better themselves through the allegory by keeping the story in mind when making life decisions.

Another idea that appears quite different and promising is that every human has an intrinsic potentiality to reach the highest good. No longer are we necessarily bound by the limitations of this world. Regardless of ethnicity, class, or sex, our souls can each attain the same ultimate goal. It is in our own nature to want the good and we all have the capability to reach it. This idea is revolutionary and is also an inherently Christian value that can be found throughout the tradition of the church. This allegory can be used as a metaphor for one's pursuit of God. We all have the ability and intrinsic dignity as human rationale creatures to achieve the ultimate end in communion with God and others. We are born in a world of sin and our human condition entraps us in this cave. However, through faith and reason we can all see the light outside the cave and share it with others still blinded by the darkness. This is how I relate the allegory to my life. What is the most important and valuable idea that you get from Plato's allegory of the cave?

-BaylorBear16