Virtues are still, after probably 4 or more class sessions, undefined. It seems that everyone has a different label for what the define virtue as. Some definitions seem to state that it is a characteristic of one, and others seem to state that it is a characteristic of an action, and not an individual. I particularly favor the latter. Take, for instance, patience. Patience cannot define a person, as patience can be applied to many instances. For example, one can be patient in regards to a doctor's appointment or surgery, but one could then be impatient in regards to dinner when they are hungry. If patience is a virtue, and virtues were to define individuals, then since everyone has impatience towards something, then there is not a single virtuous individual. Thus, virtues must be defined by the action. Waiting calmly for a doctor's appointment is virtuous, anxiously anticipating food is not.
P.S. I commented on Noah's and Abigail's post.
So true-so true! Must we have so many definitions of virtue!? I think the question that should be first answered in trying to deal with all these definitions of virtue is if virtue is an absolute at all or if it really is all just relative.
ReplyDelete