When reading the "Nichomachean Ethics" the part that struck me the most concerned Aristotle's explanation of how one comes to be virtuous. He states that for one to correctly do a virtuous act, they must first have some presupposed knowledge of the virtue that they are taking part in. That is to say, they must have some previous understanding of what the virtue is. So then they must have encountered the virtue previously – whether they saw it in action or were taught the virtue in an ethics class for example. The problem is, each person is being taught by someone about the virtue, and that person is taught by another, and that another and so on until we get an infinite regress of teachers. Where then did the first conception of the virtue come from? Or is the only answer this infinite regress?
It seems that one possibility is that it could be deduced naturally, or is rationally figured out with all of the information in the world that relates to the virtue. One could also possibly and theoretically create a virtue then, and rationally understand that it is for the common good without actually having any real world contact with the virtue itself.
This possibility then created a new question for me – if one CAN in fact create a conception of a virtue on their own with no previous knowledge or understanding of such, why would Aristotle state that a person has to have previous knowledge of the virtue in the first place? Aristotle’s statement that people need presupposed knowledge of the virtue to hold that virtue now seems like an unnecessary statement and precursor for creating a virtuous person in the world. Is there then an actual answer for this problem? Is there just an infinite regression of teachers? Or is it possible for the regress and Aristotle’s statements to in some way reconcile with each other?
Hannah,
ReplyDeleteThis is something that I've often wondered about myself! The term that Aristotle uses for those who possess intellectual virtue is "phronimas." It seems that the phronimas is the one who is qualified to teach the intellectual virtues, but virtues of habit must still be acquired by the individual. As far as I remember, Aristotle does not explain how the first phronimas came about.
The answer may be, as you suggest, that intellectual virtue requires reason. It is true that intellectual virtue could possibly be developed without the teaching of a phronimas, but I think that Aristotle would say that the search for intellectual virtue is far more fruitful under the direction of a phronimas.
Hannah, you brought up an interesting point that I also wondered about in this reading. However, I don't think that a person could create a conception of a virtue on their own with no previous knowledge or understanding of it. This also ties to your infinite regression question and the idea of "phronimas" Colin provided. Your post reminded me of the quintessential Plato example, the chair. There is an idea of the perfect chair, and we can only have chairs in our world because there is the ideal chair, although we can never achieve it. I think this can be applied to virtues – there is the perfect idea of a virtue, but because perfect forms cannot exist in our world, even of virtues, we need people like phronimas who teach intellectual virtues, and then we can also develop virtues of habit by observation and understanding. I hope that attempt at a connection made sense, but your post reminded me of that example.
ReplyDeleteHannah,
ReplyDeleteI think that when Aristotle says the person must have previous knowledge and understanding of the virtue, it is because he is taking into account that people can do virtuous acts on accidents, and in his mind, accidental virtuous acts do not count. Therefore, one who is virtuous, must undertand what virtue is, and be able to describe it in a knowledgeable manner.
This is why, according to Aristotle, people have to be taught to 'recognize' virtuous acts, and 'understand why' it is that they are virtuous, EVEN if these people have been acting virtuously their entire lives.
Hannah,
ReplyDeleteYour question about the origin of the first conception of a particular virtue is an interesting one. I agree with Jane about the idea that a person cannot create a conception of their own without previous knowledge or understanding of it. This ties in perfectly to what Dr. Johnson said in class: “You cannot learn swimming if you have no idea about what swimming is in the first place. At least one must understand that the goal of swimming is not to drown.” Generally, our conceptions about issues in life, virtues, beliefs, etc. are molded and shaped by several factors, some of which we are readily conscious about and others, which may have been impressed in our subconscious minds, without us even realizing it. Often times, those conceptions within our subconscious lie dormant, without use, until something triggers them into our working memory. At this point, we usually may not recall the initial origin of that conception, thus, we are most likely to assume that we “created” it. However, this tendency to assume “authorship,” regarding a conception of a particular virtue does not negate the fact that some “acquired information” was lingering in the subconscious, which gave you "presupposed knowledge" of that virtue.
Hannah,
ReplyDeleteGreat post! It is a question that no one seems to have a definite answer for in philosophy!
Your post on Aristotle actually reminded me of Plato's Meno. Not to mix the two philosophers but the main idea in the Meno is asking a similar question to yours. In the Meno, Meno is asking Socrates whether virtue can be taught. Socrates explains that people know what virtue is because of the idea of the " immortal soul" and that the soul has its own memories; thus, it recalls what virtue is. Thus, maybe we can think of Plato in light of Aristotle's idea on virtue ( as Aristotle was Plato's student). Therfore, in order to know what virtue is it does not need to be taught but we know virtue because of our soul's memory.
However, that does not actually solve the infinite regress problem though because then the question is where does the soul's memory come from?
Manali and Hannah I think this goes well with what we discussed in Ancient philosophy yesterday... I assume this is what you are referring to Manali with the the reference to Meno. It seemed throughout the class as we discussed the commentary between Socrates and Meno that several questions arose. Can virtue be taught as Manali points out. The immortal soul that he claims is present within individuals but often lost in daily activities seems a bit questionable. Is the soul's memory as Manali asks the only accountable explaination for what virtue is? It seems that no satisfactory definition ever comes from Meno. Socrates points out that the definition of virtue must be unitary and not just a variety of of virtues. If the immortal soul is responsible for virute, then is knowledge required for virtue? And can virtue be taught? Are the sophists teachers of virtues? These were all relevent queestions that came about in our class discussion on Meno that I believe to be relevant to todays discussion on virtue and hopefully further confuse all of us on how it should be defined!
ReplyDelete