[lit-ideas] Re: Definition(s) of Virtue

Unable to resist this urge to piss off William Ball and Robert Paul -- proving thereby my lack of arete -- I must confess that I always feel a tweak of consternation when I hear others speak glowingly of the Ancient Greek philosophers and their principled lives. Wait, a minute, I say to myself, aren't these the same guys who sat around snarfing down gyroi while their slaves worked the fields, worked the house, and worked on their genitalia when called upon, aren't these the lovers of little boys, fat-assed rich men with nothing to do but sit around and bullshit all day everyday, arguing whether women had souls, and if so, of what sort, for clearly it was not that of men such as themselves -- are these the virtuous, excellent men we're talking about? (Diogenes of Sinope excluded, of course).

On the otherhand, they did discover thinking. That's worth something, I suppose.


Mike Geary
Diogenes of Memphis






----- Original Message ----- From: "William Ball" <ballnw@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 3:21 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Definition(s) of Virtue






-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Judith Evans
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 6:34 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Definition(s) of Virtue

Robert, I thought arete was the fulfilment of one's
capabilities (I take that from Googling it yesterday,
also from discussions some while ago).


For Aristotle, virtue was a mean between two
extremes, the extremes
being defects of character: courage is a mean
between rashness and
timidity, e.g. (Not everything admits of a mean:


Yes -- I'm finding it difficult to describe the
extremes between which arete lies unless it is,
simply, a mean between any (and all) extremes.

Puzzled in Cardiff

Judy

--- Robert Paul <robert.paul@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

I'm surprised that in Marlena's list of opinions
about virtue, there's
no reference to Aristotle, that hero of virtue,
whose investigation of
areté is a landmark of Western philosophy-no
kidding.

I suspect it was the Greek notion of areté that Bill
Ball was asking
about when he asked whether virtue (whatever it was)
could be taught,
and that notion doesn't fit easily with some of the
things said about
virtue so far.

For Aristotle, virtue was a mean between two
extremes, the extremes
being defects of character: courage is a mean
between rashness and
timidity, e.g. (Not everything admits of a mean:
there's no such thing
as committing adultery in the right way with the
right person at the
right time-a bit of Aristotelian levity.) The
virtues are 'excellences'
of human character, but the list of Aristotelian
virtues may not exactly
match a list made up by people like us who are not
male Athenian
aristocrats. It would be strange though if timidity
and rashness were
considered virtues, and the kinds of behaviour that
'virtue' (and
obviously ''areté') ranges over don't form an
entirely unruly class.

'It is neither by nature nor contrary to it that we
are virtuous;
rather, we are adapted by nature to receive the
virtues, and we become
virtuous by habit.' Habituation is helped along by
correction and
'training,' by this is not the kind of training the
Sophists claimed to
be able to provide for the children of the Athenian
nouveaux riches.

'Virtue ethics' is making a sort of come back in
Western philosophy, but
it hasn't replaced the typical concern with rules
and principles.

If Bill insists (and I hope he does) I'll read the
Protagoras.

Robert Paul
Reed College


I hope Robert will read the Protagoras for a follow up on
the virtue thread, because we want to get straight, for purposes
of discussion, whether we can teach it, once we know exactly what it is,
its essence, quiddity, the form or idea of it.

The Gorgias is another matter. I think, in terms of argument and
persuasion, the Protagoras is for argument by way of logic, the  goal of
which is discovery of a truth , while persuasion  is the art of gaining
assent of the listener through rhetoric, or psychology, like Reagan, or
Churchill, or Demosthenes, or even Hitler (question of good and evil
aside). It is what Werner Jaeger in his Paidaia calls the job of the
"rhetor" in ancient Greece. The sophists used argument, like Bush who
lists the simple facts that no one would disagree with on the face of
its simplistic logic. What he needs is to study Ronald Reagan, the
Rhetor, to move the citizenry.

Now that I've thoroughly confused everyone, let's go on.

Bill Ball
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new
Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html


------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: