Craig: I hope we're not on a "time table". I'm 58 and retired; I figure I got at least ten more years to see what I can learn (No, I don't think it'll take all ten to get through this, just hyperbole to make sure we're not rushed).
I still have this nagging feeling, Aristotle has already decided what is virtuous, and basically assumes this is common knowledge to anyone who can think. He left alone the "intellectual virtue" in chapter 1 and assigns habit to "moral virtue". By way of analogy he states: "..for it was not by often seeing or often hearing that we got these senses, but on the contrary we had them before we used them.." and then likens that to "moral virtue". Our visual and auditory capabilities are physical manifestations of our bodies and will work regardless of "practice", nothing intangible about it. Development of morality or even a definition of what is virtuous is another matter entirely, even if he and I were to agree on what constitutes a "virtuous act". At the core of all this, I suspect, is his belief that as "social beings" we have an inherent obligation towards our fellow citizens.
Chapter two was: moderation in all things. And we're looking for "good", so don't get hung up on virtue.
Chapter three: delay gratification (modified). He states: "...for the man who abstains from bodily pleasures and delights in this very fact is temperate..."; "...."it is on account of the pleasure that we do bad things, and on account of the pain that we abstain from noble ones." Pretty sweeping generalizations (not that his ghost will be distressed by any criticism on my part). In a general sense, I certainly agree with what he says, but my approach to life is from an individual's perspective; his is not (wow, after I say something like that, I better say: "in my humble opinion!!!!)
Kev, I would like to respond more fully to your post, but for the moment I am in the middle of reading Property for my law school, (yuck!) and so I can't waste much time (otherwise I'll be here all night). I do want to say one thing though. Aristotle is never an extremist. He is not dogmatic. You say that you approach morality from an individual perspective rather than a social one. I think Aristotle would say you can only approach morality as an individual, but you will do so as an individual who lives and pariticipates in a social order. Not only can you not help that, it is part of your very nature. Or in otherwords, our social aspect is part of each individual. Anyways, I gotta get back to reading. I need to get to bed soon.
On Mar 6, 9:02 pm, "kev" <kevir...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Craig: > I hope we're not on a "time table". I'm 58 and retired; I figure I > got at least ten more years to see what I can learn (No, I don't think > it'll take all ten to get through this, just hyperbole to make sure > we're not rushed).
> I still have this nagging feeling, Aristotle has already decided > what is virtuous, and basically assumes this is common knowledge to > anyone who can think. He left alone the "intellectual virtue" in > chapter 1 and assigns habit to "moral virtue". By way of analogy he > states: > "..for it was not by often seeing or often hearing that we got these > senses, but on the contrary we had them before we used them.." > and then likens that to "moral virtue". Our visual and auditory > capabilities are physical manifestations of our bodies and will work > regardless of "practice", nothing intangible about it. Development of > morality or even a definition of what is virtuous is another matter > entirely, even if he and I were to agree on what constitutes a > "virtuous act". At the core of all this, I suspect, is his belief that > as "social beings" we have an inherent obligation towards our fellow > citizens.
> Chapter two was: moderation in all things. And we're looking for > "good", so don't get hung up on virtue.
> Chapter three: delay gratification (modified). He states: "...for the > man who abstains from bodily pleasures and delights in this very fact > is temperate..."; "...."it is on account of the pleasure that we do bad > things, and on account of the pain that we abstain from noble ones." > Pretty sweeping generalizations (not that his ghost will be distressed > by any criticism on my part). In a general sense, I certainly agree > with what he says, but my approach to life is from an individual's > perspective; his is not (wow, after I say something like that, I > better say: "in my humble opinion!!!!)
I agree with your assessment. I don't think he's dogmatic, nor extremist in any way. His views on how to live probably will map close to mine in the final analysis; the only difference will be I accept "my path in life" as free choice on my part without any presumed social responsibility/obligation/debt to the group that lives outside of "my sphere of awareness" entering into my decision to either help/ hinder/ignore.
Good luck on your test (I like being retired!!!)...Like I said, I should have at least ten years.. I ain't in any hurry...
Kev, The problem I see with your "my path in life" approach is morality doesn't make much sense in that context. For one thing morality makes the most sense in social convention context. Also, the value of our moral actions always seems to be in relation to others. I can hardly conceptually separate morality from others. Heideggar is the one who made the most sense of this. He said that there is no "I" without a "thou."
On Mar 6, 9:31 pm, "kev" <kevir...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I agree with your assessment. I don't think he's dogmatic, nor > extremist in any way. His views on how to live probably will map close > to mine in the final analysis; the only difference will be I accept > "my path in life" as free choice on my part without any presumed > social responsibility/obligation/debt to the group that lives outside > of "my sphere of awareness" entering into my decision to either help/ > hinder/ignore.
> Good luck on your test (I like being retired!!!)...Like I said, I should > have at least ten years.. I ain't in any hurry...
I agree philosophically for the most part with what you say, however, if we drifted over to the idea of "hard determinism", what becomes of morality then????
Whether or not morality makes **more** sense in regards to some social convention in contrast with "to thine own self be true", well....it won't prevent me from understanding what Aristotle's view is.
A philosophy teacher had the same "issue" with me on morality; He said, "I don't know how to respond to you." With 58 years of experince behind me, I've learned I don't think like many (any??) people and evidently I lack the communicative skills to explain the "whys" coherently enough to make sense to others. Instead, I'll learn why people believe what they do. What we are doing is **exactly** what I was looking for in a philosophy forum....
On Mar 7, 1:36 pm, "kev" <kevir...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I agree philosophically for the most part with what you say, however, > if we drifted over to the idea of "hard determinism", what becomes of > morality then????
This question is basically irrelevent. If we are determined then the conversation we are having at this very moment was determined. We were determined to discuss morality. We were determined to read Aristotle's ethics. We are determined to believe that we are responsible for our supposed choices. If determinism is true I am determined to believe that indeterminism is true. You may be correct in the assumption that if determism is true then it is illogical to hold people responsible for their acts, but if you make that conclusion and act accordingly, then you were determined to do that as well. I do believe that we are indetermined. I believe that I have chosen to believe that I can choose. And, I believe that I am responsible for my choices. And when you come right down to it, it's almost impossible to believe that you can't choose. Even if we believe it in the abstract, we stilll make choices everyday and believe that we were free to do so.
> Whether or not morality makes **more** sense in regards to some social > convention in contrast with "to thine own self be true", well....it > won't prevent me from understanding what Aristotle's view is.
Yes, but Aristotle wants you to do more than understand, he wants you to concede that he is right. :) j/k
> A philosophy teacher had the same "issue" with me on morality; He > said, "I don't know how to respond to you." With 58 years of experince > behind me, I've learned I don't think like many (any??) people and > evidently I lack the communicative skills to explain the "whys" > coherently enough to make sense to others. Instead, I'll learn why > people believe what they do. What we are doing is **exactly** what I > was looking for in a philosophy forum....
This creates a interesting issue. Can you really believe something that you cant communicate? I don't know the answer to this question, but it is an interesting one none the less.
Now we're having fun!!!!! This might be a slight digression, but hey...It's just the two of us and I'm enjoying the discussion....Let me try and answer some of your questions (in no particular order)...
Craig asked this: <quote> Can you really believe something that you cant communicate? <end quote>
Short answer is "Yes, if it's a feeling you believe, but language doesn't have the required verbiage to express it; or I lack the vocabulary to express it; or there's too much to be expressed." Think of the word you were trying to explain to me from the Greek word for "happiness", which you said wasn't **exactly** what happiness was in English. Therein lies the rub, how can I know **exactly** what you mean (or Aristotle, for that matter) if the words you're using don't conjure up the exact same references/images/meaning in my mind, because our experiences/culture/language aren't synonymous. Add on the limited capacity of written communication (loss of inflection & emphasis, body language, eye to eye contact, instantaneous ability to correct misinterpretations, etc) and it's a wonder anyone communicates anything to anyone else. I've got 58 years of experiencing life through my eyes with my thoughts and analysis of what I've witnessed. There's very little I could explain of "my life view" coherently in 25 words or less (I couldn't even answer your short question in under a hundred), but I **know** how I feel and what thoughts over 58 years led me to those conclusions/beliefs/insights/epiphanies.
Here's a perfect example of miscommunication I say: "..if we drifted over to the idea of "hard determinism", what becomes of morality then????" You reply: " This question is basically irrelevent. If we are determined then the conversation we are having at this very moment was determined."
My entire point in bringing up determinism was to illustrate that there was a philosophical branch that basically negates free will and morality. We're on a different branch of the philosophy tree discussing "virtue and morality" as though they exist (but only on our branch). It's as if the "tree of philosophy" has this special ability not found in any other tree, to grow different fruit on different branches of the same tree. From this, you were to infer, how much of a stretch is it to believe I have a different basic concept of morality, if you can understand there's a branch that completely **negates** morality. That was my intent; and I still don't know if I expressed it well enough for you to understand (not necessarily agree) it the way I do.
Anyway, communication is another thread, right??? Back to Aristotle, with your help, I will understand him!!! K e v
> Now we're having fun!!!!! This might be a slight digression, but > hey...It's just the two of us and I'm enjoying the discussion....Let > me try and answer some of your questions (in no particular order)...
> Craig asked this: > <quote> > Can you really believe something that you cant communicate? > <end quote>
> Short answer is "Yes, if it's a feeling you believe, but language > doesn't have the required verbiage to express it; or I lack the > vocabulary to express it; or there's too much to be expressed." > Think of the word you were trying to explain to me from the Greek word > for "happiness", which you said wasn't **exactly** what happiness was > in English. Therein lies the rub, how can I know **exactly** what you > mean (or Aristotle, for that matter) if the words you're using don't > conjure up the exact same references/images/meaning in my mind, > because our experiences/culture/language aren't synonymous. Add on the > limited capacity of written communication (loss of inflection & > emphasis, body language, eye to eye contact, instantaneous ability to > correct misinterpretations, etc) and it's a wonder anyone communicates > anything to anyone else. I've got 58 years of experiencing life > through my eyes with my thoughts and analysis of what I've witnessed. > There's very little I could explain of "my life view" coherently in 25 > words or less (I couldn't even answer your short question in under a > hundred), but I **know** how I feel and what thoughts over 58 years > led me to those conclusions/beliefs/insights/epiphanies.
> Here's a perfect example of miscommunication > I say: > "..if we drifted over to the idea of "hard determinism", what becomes > of morality then????" > You reply: > " This question is basically irrelevent. If we are determined then > the conversation we are having at this very moment was determined."
> My entire point in bringing up determinism was to illustrate that > there was a philosophical branch that basically negates free will and > morality. We're on a different branch of the philosophy tree > discussing "virtue and morality" as though they exist (but only on our > branch). It's as if the "tree of philosophy" has this special ability > not found in any other tree, to grow different fruit on different > branches of the same tree. From this, you were to infer, how much of a > stretch is it to believe I have a different basic concept of morality, > if you can understand there's a branch that completely **negates** > morality. That was my intent; and I still don't know if I expressed it > well enough for you to understand (not necessarily agree) it the way I > do.
> Anyway, communication is another thread, right??? Back to Aristotle, > with your help, I will understand him!!! > K e v
kev, I just want to let you know I haven't given up on this project. Aristotle takes extra brain power for me and so I want to make sure I have the time to treat him properly. Just turned in a huge paper that's been lingering over my head so I imagine I'll get to this soon. If you can try to rally some interest in this so that others will participate.
On Mar 7, 9:59 pm, "kev" <kevir...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Mar 26, 6:41 pm, "Kierkecraig" <craigatkin...@gmail.com> wrote: (partially) <quote> kev, I just want to let you know I haven't given up on this project. Aristotle takes extra brain power for me and so I want to make sure I have the time to treat him properly. Just turned in a huge paper that's been lingering over my head so I imagine I'll get to this soon. If you can try to rally some interest in this so that others will participate. <end quote>
Craig:
You'd think in a philosophy forum, interest on Aristotle would be self-generated....
We're at variance in the opinion of how many people it takes to have a worthwhile project. I like it with just you & I....If others join in, that's fine, but I find effective communication and understanding diminishes the greater the number of individuals participating (consider it another belief of a highly individualistic person). I like reading Aristotle, with your interpretations. Do not take this as a "hope" that others will not contribute; just I'd be an insincere advocate to solicit additional participants...
Sounds good kev. I don't hope that others will participate so much for my own gain but for theirs. What frustrates me most about discussing issues related to ethics and morality in this group is that few have a grasp on the underlying issues. Many think that in today's "progressive and enlightened" society we have finally stumbled upon the truth of moral relativism. My hope is that others will come to the realization that moral relativism is not a product of our "progressive and enlightened" society, rather is just so happens that it is the one we have settled on.
Aristotle accommodated aspects of moral relativism in his own moral theory, and yet avoided adopting a universal application of it like we have today. I believe that Aristotle had a better grasp of ethics than any moral philosopher today has. There are those that follow Aristotle and adopt his moral theory, but none of them can grapple with the issues like Aristotle could.
In my undergraduate work I took a couple classes that surveyed all the major philosophers. We always started with Plato and Aristotle. The feeling I got as we progressed through the course is that Aristotle and Plato are for beginners and that once you've surveyed them you can dig in to the really great philosophers. Unfortunately I fell for this mentality and avoided these two great men until my last semester. Fortunately this was a good thing because I was better versed in philosophy and so was better prepared to learn from these great men. Funny thing was, everything that I had learned thus far in my undergrad from all the great progressive philosophers had already been dealt with by Aristotle and Plato. Of course the other philosophers had put their own spin on things and synthesized ideas that had made us look at things a little differently, but in the end, Aristotle and Plato had thought of it all before anyone else. One philosopher has said that all of philosophy since Plato is a footnote to Plato. Another philosopher said that there have been no philosophers since Aristotle, only students of philosophy.
Anyways, I'm going to stop now because I'm ranting. I don't know why I'm going on rants lately. I'll try to stop. i just wanted to express why it is I would love for others to enjoy Aristotle. However, I am more than fine with our current arrangement. And I am going to get to the next reading. Just give me some time.
On Mar 27, 2:13 pm, "kev" <kevir...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mar 26, 6:41 pm, "Kierkecraig" <craigatkin...@gmail.com> wrote: > (partially) > <quote> > kev, > I just want to let you know I haven't given up on this project. > Aristotle takes extra brain power for me and so I want to make sure I > have the time to treat him properly. Just turned in a huge paper > that's been lingering over my head so I imagine I'll get to this soon. > If you can try to rally some interest in this so that others will > participate. > <end quote>
> Craig:
> You'd think in a philosophy forum, interest on Aristotle would be > self-generated....
> We're at variance in the opinion of how many people it takes to > have a worthwhile project. I like it with just you & I....If others > join in, that's fine, but I find effective communication and > understanding diminishes the greater the number of individuals > participating (consider it another belief of a highly individualistic > person). I like reading Aristotle, with your interpretations. Do not > take this as a "hope" that others will not contribute; just I'd be an > insincere advocate to solicit additional participants...
|
