According to Aristotle, truly good character falls in the
mean of two extremes. A man is a coward if he is not brave in a battle, but he
is a fool if he charges into battle thoughtlessly. Unfortunately, the mean is
in a constant state of shifting and filling into situations. The mean in
dealing with one person may be entirely different than the mean in dealing with
another. Those of good character are the ones that are able to consistently
balance their actions and mannerisms to fit the situation. The problem with
this logic is that there is no solid answer for what virtue and goodness is. The
answer proposed is that it is a shifting standard. But this answer seems
incomplete… How can one be truly virtuous if there is no exact definition for
virtue?
I commented on Dallas and Morgan's post
I commented on Dallas and Morgan's post
You bring up an interesting point about altering definitions of virtues. The fact that we constantly seek the absolute truth of tings when the truth is always subjective makes that search for absolution very difficult.
ReplyDeleteIn a sense, rashness may be considered the mean. If you have no fear whatsoever, who cares if you charge head first into battle? Honestly, that's more virtuous and epic than those of any who may have a second thought. Warriors were trained to not fear death, so being considered a fool for your fearlessness is harsh. Anyway, if this could be said for fear, could that also be said of other virtuous actions? Can there be virtues where the mean is placed directly on what we would consider an extreme? If so, then we can actually determine what a true virtue is depending on the action.
ReplyDeleteI could side with Aristotle on his theory of there being a mean to all things, but I see how his argument has holes in it. Like your question. His theory allows for there to be wiggle room in how each person sees virtue and that makes room for everyone's own opinion of it.
ReplyDeleteI mean, can virtue even be defined? Seems to be a reoccurring theme. Is the definition of virtue always swayed by who gives it?
ReplyDeleteI think being virtuous is something that is specific to each person. Something that is virtuous for someone may not be virtuous for another.
ReplyDelete