Aristotle speaks about virtue and how we can determine which acts we perform are truly virtuous or not. He makes a note that anyone can be virtuous by accident, but they should not be seen as virtuous. Wouldn't that be a non-virtuous act by calling someone non-virtuous despite performing a virtuous action or deed despite being "accidental"? That person was virtuous during that moment regardless of his character. This is where Aristotle tries to cover every base but I still fail to see where his sense of an accident comes from. Theoretically, you could call any virtuous action an accident.
Aristotle also tries to create this idea of a mean virtue between two extremes. In retrospect, it makes sense, but then he adds that some means are closer to some extremes than the other. Excuse me? A mean is a mean, an average, not a peg on an abacus where you can slide it back and forth to fit your needs. Granted, the virtuousness of an action can be seen as greater or lesser depending on the person; but then it becomes a mean that isn't truly a mean but an individual judgement with relations between people.
I don't know, philosophy is crazy and so am I: send help.
(I commented on Francesca and Hannah's posts.)
Is virtuousness a characteristic of an individual action, or an act? If someone is waiting patiently for finals week, but impatiently for Christmas break, are they a patient person?
ReplyDeleteI think Travis' question is a good one but want to take it a step further. Is virtue as a characteristic strictly based on the action, or do the passions come into play somewhere as well? Are not "the states of character" the combination, balance, mean, of the passions and faculties? I think Aristotle is on the right track in his philosophizing of virtue in stating that virtue is a choice to pursue the balance (mean). I will say, I do not know how I feel about the mean being relative to us.
ReplyDelete