I think one of the most fundamental points that Hume explains is the following: “moral conduct does not spring from conclusions of reason or the understand and that reason is incapable of drawing moral conclusions.” He believes that this reaction can only be done through an internal sense. He also explains how the investigation of human nature rests on the factual inquiry of orgin of morals.
Hume believes that benevolence is a part of human nature that promotes the basic human goods A point that is relevant is that Hume believes that benevolence is both universal “in persons and universally approved by impartial inquirers.” Similar to benevolence, which Hume believes is approved primarily because of its social utility, justice is approved “exclusively because of their social utility. It is important to note that necessity of rules of justice is needed, but that they differ from culture to culture. He also points out that justice is necessary because conflict is inevitable.
I think that I understand the broad concepts. Hume thinks that all people have an internal sense (which he names as sympathy) that allows for people to cooperate. For example, even if you do not know people in your study group, you can understand how people work and understand cultural norms well enough to function. People have a common sense that is similar to a conscious without a religious connotation. Also, justice, something that was not naturally made (it was constructed over time by humans out of necessity) helps the formation of societies. In this sense, I feel like philosophy and sociology have a lot in common. They both try and explain how people and their communities function; therefore, all findings are relevant and help people better adapt to their surroundings.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Hume - Natural Virtue
Yes I know this is very early...but it is Parent's Weekend and that is usually when I do all my ethics reading. Instead of reading outside of Stalnaker under the trees, I had to read in my small little dorm room. No I am not bitter about this. Yay Hume!...
Natural virtues are virtues that “have no dependence on the artifice and contrivance of men”. Natural virtues always produce good, whereas some artificial virtues may actually hurt the public good. But, because most artificial values serve the public good, they have been shaped into moral virtues. And differing reactions, in response to these actions, appear because sympathy and comparison alter people’s decision making process. Although I understand this concept, I do not clearly grasp the conversation concerning the differences in generosity and hatred. Hume brings up the point that in some cases the absence of hatred reveals moral weakness. I feel like this is a central argument to his position, so I am frustrated that I do not understand it. I even read the annotations, but I still do not fully grasp what he is saying.
Hume tries to distinguish between natural abilities and natural virtues but came to the conclusion that both are sources of pleasure and esteem. These natural abilities (perseverance, wisdom, temperance) he states, are involuntary; therefore, they are natural.
Similarly, Hume connects physical assets such as beauty and strength to that of fortune (wealth and power). He once again tells how these both produce much of the same effect. They are useful to those who either posses them, or observe them. I find this interesting that he would add people who observe in the same category to those who possess. Do the onlookers really get the same amount of pleasure out of the asset as the owner does?
In conclusion to his book, Hume emphasizes how he believes that sympathy is the “chief source of moral distinctions” because it allows us to connect with and understand the public good.
I found A Treatise of Human Naure very difficult to read. I feel that if we would have spent a lot of time on just one section at a time, it would have been a lot easier to grasp. I feel like I have a very general sweeping knowledge of what Hume wished to say. I wish that there could have been more time devoted to specific passages.
Natural virtues are virtues that “have no dependence on the artifice and contrivance of men”. Natural virtues always produce good, whereas some artificial virtues may actually hurt the public good. But, because most artificial values serve the public good, they have been shaped into moral virtues. And differing reactions, in response to these actions, appear because sympathy and comparison alter people’s decision making process. Although I understand this concept, I do not clearly grasp the conversation concerning the differences in generosity and hatred. Hume brings up the point that in some cases the absence of hatred reveals moral weakness. I feel like this is a central argument to his position, so I am frustrated that I do not understand it. I even read the annotations, but I still do not fully grasp what he is saying.
Hume tries to distinguish between natural abilities and natural virtues but came to the conclusion that both are sources of pleasure and esteem. These natural abilities (perseverance, wisdom, temperance) he states, are involuntary; therefore, they are natural.
Similarly, Hume connects physical assets such as beauty and strength to that of fortune (wealth and power). He once again tells how these both produce much of the same effect. They are useful to those who either posses them, or observe them. I find this interesting that he would add people who observe in the same category to those who possess. Do the onlookers really get the same amount of pleasure out of the asset as the owner does?
In conclusion to his book, Hume emphasizes how he believes that sympathy is the “chief source of moral distinctions” because it allows us to connect with and understand the public good.
I found A Treatise of Human Naure very difficult to read. I feel that if we would have spent a lot of time on just one section at a time, it would have been a lot easier to grasp. I feel like I have a very general sweeping knowledge of what Hume wished to say. I wish that there could have been more time devoted to specific passages.
Hume's explanation of Morality
Moral distinctions not derived from reason:
Hume states how nothing but perceptions enter the mind. And these perception, either impressions or ideas, decide virtue and vice. Reason can never be the sole factor in decision because it is only concerned with truth and falsehood. Reasons rigidity does not allow for passion to enter the equation. Right and wrong moral distinctions cannot be established by truth.
Moral distinctions derived from a moral sense:
Hume states how all distinctions are founded upon impressions and sentiments. He describes two states, approbation and disapprobation, as the calm pleasure received from a virtue or a clam pain received from a vice. The discovery of the two states can only be found through response of character and action, which involves a moral sense.
Justice, whether a natural or artificial virtue?
Hume states that justice is an artificial virtue (created by the “circumstances and necessities of mankind) because the original intent or motive behind it (self-interest, public benevolence, and private benevolence) could not and did not exist during human beings original state. Justice was learned over time.
Of the origin of justice and property
Justice, as described in section 2, is artificial and was made in response to the formation of societies. People learned to realize that if disputes and arguments were diminished, society could survive longer. After the idea of justice formed, property followed after it. It followed because of the people’s own self-interest. People wanted to be able to control their own external goods which created a web of property rights and the necessity to follow those rights.
Of the rules, which determine property
Hume states how the original application of property must be based on present possession. This rule of justice is clear, specific, but yet general. Once the system is established, criteria of ownership must be enacted. Such criteria include the following: occupation, prescription, accession, and succession.
Of the transference of property by consent
The transference of property remains limited only by the imagination. Hume states that the property will be there no matter who owns it, but the interests of society are directly affected by the specific guidelines and rules that govern the transfer of the property.
Of the obligation of promises
Hume states that a promise is an artificial virtue. He states that it is a human invention that was only established to better the interests of society. He then adds that without conventions such as resolution, desire, and willingness, there would be no obligation to fulfill the promise. He also states that there must be structure in order to establish the making of the promise.
Some farther reflections concerning justice and injustice
Hume states that the establishment of justice leads to the institution of property. This is important because this means that there is no natural motive to respect that property. It is learned over time. He explains how justice has no degree. It is either just or unjust. This rigidity conflicts with the flexibility of our natural motives.
Difficult passages:
‘Tis evident, that when we praise any actions, we regard only the motives that produced them, and consider the actions as signs or indications of certain principles in the mind and temper. (p.307) 3.2.1
This passage seems difficult. I think it means that we only praise actions which we have positive preconceptions to, but then how do these preconceptions form?
The relation of fitness or suitableness ought never to enter into consideration, in distributing the properties of mankind; but we must govern ourselves by rules, which are more general in their application, and more free from doubt and uncertainty. (p.330) 3.2.4
I do not understand Hume’s reasoning in his application of this principle. I do not want property to be distributed to those who do not know how to upkeep it, or who cannot control it properly.
Interesting passages:
Morality is a subject that interests us above all others: We fancy the peace of society to be at stake in every decision concerning it; and ‘tis evident, that this concern must make our speculations appear more real and solid, than where the subject is, in great measure, indifferent to us. (p.293) 3.1.1
I think that this is interesting because it explains how even if we can’t define morality, the idea of it comforts us. The use of morality can promote a common calm among people. Plus, we always like to measure people’s actions in comparison to a moral standard.
It has been observed that nothing is ever present to the mind but its perceptions; and that all the actions of seeing, hearing, judging, loving, hating, and thinking, fall under this denomination. (p. 293) 3.1.1
I would ask Hume to clarify his positions. I feel like I can read the headings and understand his point just as well as I could without reading. I am having a difficult time finding connections from his examples. I do not see how he is justifying his assertions. Although I do agree with him on most points, I can not clearly say why I do (it is just more out of gut reaction that I agree).
Hume states how nothing but perceptions enter the mind. And these perception, either impressions or ideas, decide virtue and vice. Reason can never be the sole factor in decision because it is only concerned with truth and falsehood. Reasons rigidity does not allow for passion to enter the equation. Right and wrong moral distinctions cannot be established by truth.
Moral distinctions derived from a moral sense:
Hume states how all distinctions are founded upon impressions and sentiments. He describes two states, approbation and disapprobation, as the calm pleasure received from a virtue or a clam pain received from a vice. The discovery of the two states can only be found through response of character and action, which involves a moral sense.
Justice, whether a natural or artificial virtue?
Hume states that justice is an artificial virtue (created by the “circumstances and necessities of mankind) because the original intent or motive behind it (self-interest, public benevolence, and private benevolence) could not and did not exist during human beings original state. Justice was learned over time.
Of the origin of justice and property
Justice, as described in section 2, is artificial and was made in response to the formation of societies. People learned to realize that if disputes and arguments were diminished, society could survive longer. After the idea of justice formed, property followed after it. It followed because of the people’s own self-interest. People wanted to be able to control their own external goods which created a web of property rights and the necessity to follow those rights.
Of the rules, which determine property
Hume states how the original application of property must be based on present possession. This rule of justice is clear, specific, but yet general. Once the system is established, criteria of ownership must be enacted. Such criteria include the following: occupation, prescription, accession, and succession.
Of the transference of property by consent
The transference of property remains limited only by the imagination. Hume states that the property will be there no matter who owns it, but the interests of society are directly affected by the specific guidelines and rules that govern the transfer of the property.
Of the obligation of promises
Hume states that a promise is an artificial virtue. He states that it is a human invention that was only established to better the interests of society. He then adds that without conventions such as resolution, desire, and willingness, there would be no obligation to fulfill the promise. He also states that there must be structure in order to establish the making of the promise.
Some farther reflections concerning justice and injustice
Hume states that the establishment of justice leads to the institution of property. This is important because this means that there is no natural motive to respect that property. It is learned over time. He explains how justice has no degree. It is either just or unjust. This rigidity conflicts with the flexibility of our natural motives.
Difficult passages:
‘Tis evident, that when we praise any actions, we regard only the motives that produced them, and consider the actions as signs or indications of certain principles in the mind and temper. (p.307) 3.2.1
This passage seems difficult. I think it means that we only praise actions which we have positive preconceptions to, but then how do these preconceptions form?
The relation of fitness or suitableness ought never to enter into consideration, in distributing the properties of mankind; but we must govern ourselves by rules, which are more general in their application, and more free from doubt and uncertainty. (p.330) 3.2.4
I do not understand Hume’s reasoning in his application of this principle. I do not want property to be distributed to those who do not know how to upkeep it, or who cannot control it properly.
Interesting passages:
Morality is a subject that interests us above all others: We fancy the peace of society to be at stake in every decision concerning it; and ‘tis evident, that this concern must make our speculations appear more real and solid, than where the subject is, in great measure, indifferent to us. (p.293) 3.1.1
I think that this is interesting because it explains how even if we can’t define morality, the idea of it comforts us. The use of morality can promote a common calm among people. Plus, we always like to measure people’s actions in comparison to a moral standard.
It has been observed that nothing is ever present to the mind but its perceptions; and that all the actions of seeing, hearing, judging, loving, hating, and thinking, fall under this denomination. (p. 293) 3.1.1
I would ask Hume to clarify his positions. I feel like I can read the headings and understand his point just as well as I could without reading. I am having a difficult time finding connections from his examples. I do not see how he is justifying his assertions. Although I do agree with him on most points, I can not clearly say why I do (it is just more out of gut reaction that I agree).
Friday, September 19, 2008
Calm and Violent Passions
Hume makes a distinction between calm and violent passions. He says “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.”
Hume is saying that passion and reason combat each other and conflict. He is saying that reason alone can never, alone, motivate a person to do a certain action. He says this because he believes that reason can never oppose passion in a direction of will, and that passions are never unreasonable. And, since reason exerts itself without producing any sensible emotion, reason should not solely used to make a decision.
He means that reason is not intact with reality. He thinks that it is too removed.
Contemporary examples of this can be seen. For example, reason can be viewed as today’s “book smarts” while passions or emotions can be viewed as today’s “street smarts”. Without the street smarts, the book smarts is useless. You would not be able to interact with society, which in turn would not allow the book smarts to be of any good. Also, a passion could be seen as a positive obsession. When Hume says violent passion, a negative connotation is attached, which can be rather confusing. I would use an Olympic athlete as an example of a person with a violent passion to explain that it is not a negative emotion.
Interesting:
Nothing is more usual in philosophy, and even in common life, than to talk of the combat of passion and reason, to give the preference to reason, and assert that men are only so far virtuous as they conform themselves to its dictates. P.265
I think that this is obvious, and I understood that reason does not match up with our passion. This is a discussion that needs attention.
‘Tis obvious, that when we have the prospect of pain or pleasure from any object, we feel a consequent emotion of aversion or propensity, and are carried to avoid or embrace what will give us this uneasiness or satisfaction. P.266
People will avoid situations in order to escape pain. This can be seen in how people interact with each other. When presented with a challenging situation, even though the end means might be rewarding, people will bypass the challenge because they do not want to exert the energy and feel pain.
But nothing has a greater effect both to increase and diminish our passions, to convert pleasure into pain, and pain into pleasure, than custom and repetition. P. 271
The more you do something, the more you become numb to it. If you do something dangerous enough times, it will not seem dangerous.
Confusing:
Thus it appears, that the principle, which opposes our passion, cannot be the same with reason, and is only called so in an improper sense. P.266
I feel like this contradicts itself. I do not see the difference between principle, passion, and reason. They all seem to be very similar.
The same good, when near, will cause a violent passion, which, when remote, produces only a calm one. P.269
I do not understand how this happens. What is an example of this?
There is another phenomenon of a like nature with the foregoing, viz. the superior effects of the same distance in futurity above that in the past. P.275
I do not get what the difference between the future and the past is. I did not understand why they had different meanings to them.
Hume is saying that passion and reason combat each other and conflict. He is saying that reason alone can never, alone, motivate a person to do a certain action. He says this because he believes that reason can never oppose passion in a direction of will, and that passions are never unreasonable. And, since reason exerts itself without producing any sensible emotion, reason should not solely used to make a decision.
He means that reason is not intact with reality. He thinks that it is too removed.
Contemporary examples of this can be seen. For example, reason can be viewed as today’s “book smarts” while passions or emotions can be viewed as today’s “street smarts”. Without the street smarts, the book smarts is useless. You would not be able to interact with society, which in turn would not allow the book smarts to be of any good. Also, a passion could be seen as a positive obsession. When Hume says violent passion, a negative connotation is attached, which can be rather confusing. I would use an Olympic athlete as an example of a person with a violent passion to explain that it is not a negative emotion.
Interesting:
Nothing is more usual in philosophy, and even in common life, than to talk of the combat of passion and reason, to give the preference to reason, and assert that men are only so far virtuous as they conform themselves to its dictates. P.265
I think that this is obvious, and I understood that reason does not match up with our passion. This is a discussion that needs attention.
‘Tis obvious, that when we have the prospect of pain or pleasure from any object, we feel a consequent emotion of aversion or propensity, and are carried to avoid or embrace what will give us this uneasiness or satisfaction. P.266
People will avoid situations in order to escape pain. This can be seen in how people interact with each other. When presented with a challenging situation, even though the end means might be rewarding, people will bypass the challenge because they do not want to exert the energy and feel pain.
But nothing has a greater effect both to increase and diminish our passions, to convert pleasure into pain, and pain into pleasure, than custom and repetition. P. 271
The more you do something, the more you become numb to it. If you do something dangerous enough times, it will not seem dangerous.
Confusing:
Thus it appears, that the principle, which opposes our passion, cannot be the same with reason, and is only called so in an improper sense. P.266
I feel like this contradicts itself. I do not see the difference between principle, passion, and reason. They all seem to be very similar.
The same good, when near, will cause a violent passion, which, when remote, produces only a calm one. P.269
I do not understand how this happens. What is an example of this?
There is another phenomenon of a like nature with the foregoing, viz. the superior effects of the same distance in futurity above that in the past. P.275
I do not get what the difference between the future and the past is. I did not understand why they had different meanings to them.
Random Acts of Kindness 3
Last week I went to Spikes and the person in front of me ran out of meals. The person was really embarressed, and did not have any cash on them. I overheard the conversation and let her use one of my meals ( I had an extra one left). She was suprised at first, but took my card. She told me that if I ever needed a meal she would gladly give me one of hers. I was glad that I could help, and I know that other people in the line saw what I did. I hope I left a good impression.
Hume Part I and II
Introduction: Hume believes that all people “know” that their views and beliefs are the best. He also points out that science has become a field of debate. He claims that it is filled with opinions and that nothing seems certain anymore. He also says that eloquence will win over reason and questions whether truth can ever be reached. He later goes on to talk about how the understanding of human nature can directly lead to the understanding of all other sciences.
Part I: Of the Passions; Of pride and humility
There are two perceptions of the mind (impressions and ideas). Impressions can be split up into sensations (which are like senses) or reflections (which are like interpretations or emotions). Then, he describes how the passions that arise out of these impressions can be further split up into direct or indirect. The passions, although contrary, have the same object. This object he determined is the self. Hume also explains how the products of pride differ from the cause of it. Country, family or riches can cause pride whereas good-sense, learning and courage are products of pride. He later delves deeper into the subject and states how the combination of quality and subject produce pride. Then, he explained how the causes of pride and humility are natural to all beings, but are not original.
He stated how vice and virtue are causes of passions and are part of our character because pain and pleasure cause vice and virtue. Also, he explained how beauty produced delight which lead to pride, and how deformity produced pain which lead to humility. He added how beauty and strength along with force make up pride.
Hume talked about how pride can only occur if the external object acquires a particular relation to self. When this connection or relationship is developed, vanity can occur.
Hume later commented that property has the greatest relationship to people, which in turn produces the greatest passion of pride, and the existence of power allows for us to satisfy our desires.
Then, he claims that sympathy is the most remarkable quality of human nature. He finds it interesting how people with such different make ups can get along and understand each other enough to sympathize with. And he states that the pleasure we receive from praise arises form a community of sentiments, not just a single source.
He concluded Part I by reiterating that no passion can exist unless it is related to us and produces a pleasure or pain independent of passion. Also, he stated that the causes of passions are the power of producing agreeable or uneasy sensations. He tied the existence of this in humans to that of animals.
Part II: Of Love and Hatred
Hume made it very clear that love and hatred had a different object than pride and humility (which is the self). He stated that the object of love and hatred in another person. He stated how this passion must be applied to another thinking being. Then, he went on to explain how circumstance plays a major role in diminishing passions, but can rarely remove them completely from play.
He made it a point to express that blood relation among family members produced the strongest relationship. He then took that strong relationship and tied it with the strongest sense of love. He explained how the mind finds satisfaction and is at ease with objects it is accustomed to. The mind prefers the familiar over the unfamiliar.
Hume stated that esteem comes from power and riches and that contempt comes from poverty and meanness. To build off of this point he explains how the minds of men are like mirrors. They reflect each other’s emotions.
Hume then connected benevolence and anger to that of love and anger. He stated that passions of love and anger are followed by or conjoined with benevolence and anger, and that loves end is happiness of another person. Love has a goal thru which people work towards.
Then, he spoke of pity (concern for) and malice (joy of misery of others). He explained how malice initiates effects of hatred and that pity initiates love. He then concluded by stating every object is attended with some emotion that has proper proportion to it.
Interesting Passage: “In general we may remark, that the minds of men are mirrors to one another, not only because they reflect each other’s emotions, but also because those rays of passions, sentiments and opinions may be often reverberated, and may decay away by insensible degrees. Thus, the pleasure a rich man receives from his possessions, being thrown upon the beholder, causes a pleasure and esteem; which sentiments again, being perceived and sympathized with, increases the pleasure of the possessor;…” (p. 236)
I find this passage central to Humes point and quite interesting. I think that this point explains a lot about people’s behavior. People are always looking towards one another for reassurance and for positive feedback. People look towards others in order to see if they are following the correct norms. We always judge ourselves against others. Other people are our standards of behavior.
Puzzling Passage: “’Twill be sufficient to remark in general, that the object of love and hatred is evidently some thinking person; and that the sensation of the former passion is always agreeable, and of the latter uneasy.” (p.215)
I find this central to Humes point, but very confusing and puzzling. I do not agree that people can only love a thinking person. Can’t a person love money? Can’t a person love a deceased person? I do not find the logic Hume has behind this point. I found that section (Section 1 of Part II) to be difficult to read and understand.
Part I: Of the Passions; Of pride and humility
There are two perceptions of the mind (impressions and ideas). Impressions can be split up into sensations (which are like senses) or reflections (which are like interpretations or emotions). Then, he describes how the passions that arise out of these impressions can be further split up into direct or indirect. The passions, although contrary, have the same object. This object he determined is the self. Hume also explains how the products of pride differ from the cause of it. Country, family or riches can cause pride whereas good-sense, learning and courage are products of pride. He later delves deeper into the subject and states how the combination of quality and subject produce pride. Then, he explained how the causes of pride and humility are natural to all beings, but are not original.
He stated how vice and virtue are causes of passions and are part of our character because pain and pleasure cause vice and virtue. Also, he explained how beauty produced delight which lead to pride, and how deformity produced pain which lead to humility. He added how beauty and strength along with force make up pride.
Hume talked about how pride can only occur if the external object acquires a particular relation to self. When this connection or relationship is developed, vanity can occur.
Hume later commented that property has the greatest relationship to people, which in turn produces the greatest passion of pride, and the existence of power allows for us to satisfy our desires.
Then, he claims that sympathy is the most remarkable quality of human nature. He finds it interesting how people with such different make ups can get along and understand each other enough to sympathize with. And he states that the pleasure we receive from praise arises form a community of sentiments, not just a single source.
He concluded Part I by reiterating that no passion can exist unless it is related to us and produces a pleasure or pain independent of passion. Also, he stated that the causes of passions are the power of producing agreeable or uneasy sensations. He tied the existence of this in humans to that of animals.
Part II: Of Love and Hatred
Hume made it very clear that love and hatred had a different object than pride and humility (which is the self). He stated that the object of love and hatred in another person. He stated how this passion must be applied to another thinking being. Then, he went on to explain how circumstance plays a major role in diminishing passions, but can rarely remove them completely from play.
He made it a point to express that blood relation among family members produced the strongest relationship. He then took that strong relationship and tied it with the strongest sense of love. He explained how the mind finds satisfaction and is at ease with objects it is accustomed to. The mind prefers the familiar over the unfamiliar.
Hume stated that esteem comes from power and riches and that contempt comes from poverty and meanness. To build off of this point he explains how the minds of men are like mirrors. They reflect each other’s emotions.
Hume then connected benevolence and anger to that of love and anger. He stated that passions of love and anger are followed by or conjoined with benevolence and anger, and that loves end is happiness of another person. Love has a goal thru which people work towards.
Then, he spoke of pity (concern for) and malice (joy of misery of others). He explained how malice initiates effects of hatred and that pity initiates love. He then concluded by stating every object is attended with some emotion that has proper proportion to it.
Interesting Passage: “In general we may remark, that the minds of men are mirrors to one another, not only because they reflect each other’s emotions, but also because those rays of passions, sentiments and opinions may be often reverberated, and may decay away by insensible degrees. Thus, the pleasure a rich man receives from his possessions, being thrown upon the beholder, causes a pleasure and esteem; which sentiments again, being perceived and sympathized with, increases the pleasure of the possessor;…” (p. 236)
I find this passage central to Humes point and quite interesting. I think that this point explains a lot about people’s behavior. People are always looking towards one another for reassurance and for positive feedback. People look towards others in order to see if they are following the correct norms. We always judge ourselves against others. Other people are our standards of behavior.
Puzzling Passage: “’Twill be sufficient to remark in general, that the object of love and hatred is evidently some thinking person; and that the sensation of the former passion is always agreeable, and of the latter uneasy.” (p.215)
I find this central to Humes point, but very confusing and puzzling. I do not agree that people can only love a thinking person. Can’t a person love money? Can’t a person love a deceased person? I do not find the logic Hume has behind this point. I found that section (Section 1 of Part II) to be difficult to read and understand.
Psychological Tendencies
“All human beings seem to have three psychological tendencies. The first is to have our emotional state influenced by the emotional state of those around us. The second is that our feelings about our own situation are influenced by how we see your own situation in comparison to that of others. And the third to that we like pleasure and try to avoid discomfort or pain.”
I believe that Hume might have done this by using examples of daily living. He would ask people to question how they feel when confronted by different situations. He would give examples of how behavior is situational and can change no matter what the personality of the person is. Then, he would support his second psychological tendency by pointing to the fact that people rely on other people’s approval in order to feel accomplished. People are no longer satisfied with intrinsic fulfillment, they seek external success. Then, he would point to the extremes that people go through in order to ignore pain. People will avoid situations and will ignore paths that cause excess exertion of energy and time. People would rather take the easy route, even if it is less beneficial.
I am interested to read how Hume actually does this in A Treatise of Human Nature.
I believe that Hume might have done this by using examples of daily living. He would ask people to question how they feel when confronted by different situations. He would give examples of how behavior is situational and can change no matter what the personality of the person is. Then, he would support his second psychological tendency by pointing to the fact that people rely on other people’s approval in order to feel accomplished. People are no longer satisfied with intrinsic fulfillment, they seek external success. Then, he would point to the extremes that people go through in order to ignore pain. People will avoid situations and will ignore paths that cause excess exertion of energy and time. People would rather take the easy route, even if it is less beneficial.
I am interested to read how Hume actually does this in A Treatise of Human Nature.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Aristotle VIII & "Persons, Situaions, and Virtue Ethics"
Doris undermines Aristotle’s position by first attacking the consistency of character in each person. He states that a person will act differently with different situations. He says that a person can not always be good or know good. He does not think that you can predict character because people lack a rigid character. He believes behavior is situational. He uses experimental research and common scenarios (the dropped paper) to explain behavioral inconsistency.
Doris would say that a person that is “virtuous” is not virtuous all the time. He would say that this person just acted virtuous because the situation was in favor of a person acting in a virtuous way. He would say that all circumstances allowed for the person to behave in a way that people thought favorable. He would then say that a person who is “vicious” is in fact not vicious by nature. He would say that the situation changed how the person reacted. Since Doris claims that behavior cannot be predicted, he believes that you cannot name a person virtuous or vicious. He believes that the character changes with situations.
Doris’s virtuous and vicious person would differ from Aristotle’s in the fact that Doris would not name a person virtuous or vicious. Doris believes that your actions can be virtuous or vicious, but that your actions change with situations which in turn makes your character instable and unpredictable. Aristotle, on the other hand, believes that the good always know how to do good and always know what it good. By this definition, Aristotle believes that character can be predicted quite accurately.
I believe that Doris’s views and Aristotles views are the same. They both agree with which situations are good or bad. They agree that people’s actions can be classified as beneficial to society or harmful to others. They agree that people are influenced by others. But, Aristotle had to proof of this consistency. He used observation. But, Doris used experimentation and furthered Aristotle’s findings and tweaked them to fit a more applicable model (we all know that we have done both good and bad).
Evidence to back up Doris:
He used the paper dropping experiment to show that people who are seen as “impassionate” will help others in certain situations.
The Milgram experiment showed that people who were thought to be kind and compassionate “shocked” a man to serious injury just because a man in a white lab coat was urging them to continue with the experiment.
Evidence to back up Doris:
He believes that people who are good will always know the good thing to do. You can look to your conscious for evidence for this. I believe that everyone has a conscious that knows what is right and wrong for the situation, but some people choose to suppress the voice until it is a quiet whisper. This would add to the fact that people know what to do.
The way that Aristotle talks about friendship, and the longer existence of the friendship based off goodness makes people believe that people with good intentions will perform better things for each other. He talks about how these friendships are fruitful and bring pleasure and usefulness to both parties. He says that only good people can get into these relationships, which creates an existence of a person who performs good all the time.
Doris would say that a person that is “virtuous” is not virtuous all the time. He would say that this person just acted virtuous because the situation was in favor of a person acting in a virtuous way. He would say that all circumstances allowed for the person to behave in a way that people thought favorable. He would then say that a person who is “vicious” is in fact not vicious by nature. He would say that the situation changed how the person reacted. Since Doris claims that behavior cannot be predicted, he believes that you cannot name a person virtuous or vicious. He believes that the character changes with situations.
Doris’s virtuous and vicious person would differ from Aristotle’s in the fact that Doris would not name a person virtuous or vicious. Doris believes that your actions can be virtuous or vicious, but that your actions change with situations which in turn makes your character instable and unpredictable. Aristotle, on the other hand, believes that the good always know how to do good and always know what it good. By this definition, Aristotle believes that character can be predicted quite accurately.
I believe that Doris’s views and Aristotles views are the same. They both agree with which situations are good or bad. They agree that people’s actions can be classified as beneficial to society or harmful to others. They agree that people are influenced by others. But, Aristotle had to proof of this consistency. He used observation. But, Doris used experimentation and furthered Aristotle’s findings and tweaked them to fit a more applicable model (we all know that we have done both good and bad).
Evidence to back up Doris:
He used the paper dropping experiment to show that people who are seen as “impassionate” will help others in certain situations.
The Milgram experiment showed that people who were thought to be kind and compassionate “shocked” a man to serious injury just because a man in a white lab coat was urging them to continue with the experiment.
Evidence to back up Doris:
He believes that people who are good will always know the good thing to do. You can look to your conscious for evidence for this. I believe that everyone has a conscious that knows what is right and wrong for the situation, but some people choose to suppress the voice until it is a quiet whisper. This would add to the fact that people know what to do.
The way that Aristotle talks about friendship, and the longer existence of the friendship based off goodness makes people believe that people with good intentions will perform better things for each other. He talks about how these friendships are fruitful and bring pleasure and usefulness to both parties. He says that only good people can get into these relationships, which creates an existence of a person who performs good all the time.
Virtue Theory and Abortion + Aristotle VI
What distinguishes prudence/practical wisdom/ phronesis from the other intellectual virtues? Provide examples from your own experience where someone has displayed practical wisdom/ prudence/ phronesis.
All of these virtues involve a deep understanding of the natural world and what is going on around you. It also involves the understanding of eternal truths of the universe. These virtues also benefit the entire community, they do not just benefit the person practicing it. These virtues are also held up on a higher level. It is a goal for most people to reach these intellectual virtues because they are prestigious.
Prudence – good for the entire community- My father does the landscaping at my church. This is not be benefit him, he gets nothing from the grass being green, but all of the members of the church appreciate the beautiful lawn.
Practical Wisdom – Combo of intuition and scientific knowledge – My grandpa can get a fire started anytime, anywhere. Growing up on a farm he gained a lot of knowledge about how to build a fire, and over time he has used this knowledge to determine what techniques are the best in specific weather conditions.
Phronesis – general scense of knowing proper behavior in different situations – My grandma always knows how to greet people, or knows which fork to eat with first. She knows just what to wear and knows when to start and end conversations. She is always very in tune with her surroundings.
How is Hursthouse’s discussion of abortion making use of Aristotle’s virtue theory – not just the particular virtues but his larger conception of virtue?
Hursthouse believes that abortion should not just be looked at through standards of rights or by morality. He wants to make the argument more objective by centering it around Aristotle’s virtue theory. He points out that a right to a woman’s happiness should not be the ultimate goal. He says people should center around the questions “Is her life a good one? And is she living well?” He defines the greatness of living through family, friends, and emotional development. He speaks about children as being intrinsically worthwhile. He does not center his argument around scientific facts of the fetus. He says that all abortions (or rather death of the fetus) is serious and is not something to be taken lightly.
Interesting and puzzling (and why) from each article.
Interesting (A. Book VI p.179) “On the subject of wisdom, we may get what we need once we have considered who it is that we call ‘wise’. Well, it is thought characteristic of a wise person to be able to deliberate well about the things that are good and advantageous to himself, not in specific contexts, e.g. what sorts of things conduce to health, or to physical strength, but what sorts of things conduce to the good in general.”
I thought that this was one of the passages that was clear. Most people think of wise people and not necessarily being book smart, or extremely intelligent in one field, but rather having a grand general knowledge of everyday life.
Puzzling (A. Book VI p.183) “For some people look for what is good for themselves, and thing this is what they should do. It is this view, then, that has given rise to the idea that this sort of person is wise; and yet presumably one’s own well-being is inseparable from managing a household, and from political organization. Again, how one should govern one’s affairs is unclear, and something that needs investigation. “
Maybe I just don’t understand the sentence, but I feel like Aristotle just contradicted himself by saying how one should govern one’s affairs is unclear. Isn’t this what his book is all about? Isn’t he telling people how to do this?
Interesting (H. p.237) “These facts make it obvious that pregnancy is not just one among many other physical conditions; and hence that anyone who genuinely believes that an abortion is comparable to a haircut is or an appendectomy is mistaken.”
I find this very interesting. I think that current debates of abortion rarely stop to think about the seriousness of the situation. They just spit out facts and stats. A lot of people also take pregnancy for granted and do not realize the importance of it. I find that true when people get pregnant in high school. They do not understand the responsibility.
Puzzling (H. p.236) “that the status of the fetus – that issue over which so much ink has been spilled – that is according to virtue theory simply not relevant to the rightness or wrongness of abortion (within ,that is, a secular morality).”
I found this difficult to follow Hursthouse’s reasoning to not include the status of the fetus. I could not find why he thought it was not relevant. I would imagine that the status of the fetus would change the seriousness of the abortion. For example, if the fetus were about to die would the abortion be as “bad” as if the fetus were perfectly healthy?
All of these virtues involve a deep understanding of the natural world and what is going on around you. It also involves the understanding of eternal truths of the universe. These virtues also benefit the entire community, they do not just benefit the person practicing it. These virtues are also held up on a higher level. It is a goal for most people to reach these intellectual virtues because they are prestigious.
Prudence – good for the entire community- My father does the landscaping at my church. This is not be benefit him, he gets nothing from the grass being green, but all of the members of the church appreciate the beautiful lawn.
Practical Wisdom – Combo of intuition and scientific knowledge – My grandpa can get a fire started anytime, anywhere. Growing up on a farm he gained a lot of knowledge about how to build a fire, and over time he has used this knowledge to determine what techniques are the best in specific weather conditions.
Phronesis – general scense of knowing proper behavior in different situations – My grandma always knows how to greet people, or knows which fork to eat with first. She knows just what to wear and knows when to start and end conversations. She is always very in tune with her surroundings.
How is Hursthouse’s discussion of abortion making use of Aristotle’s virtue theory – not just the particular virtues but his larger conception of virtue?
Hursthouse believes that abortion should not just be looked at through standards of rights or by morality. He wants to make the argument more objective by centering it around Aristotle’s virtue theory. He points out that a right to a woman’s happiness should not be the ultimate goal. He says people should center around the questions “Is her life a good one? And is she living well?” He defines the greatness of living through family, friends, and emotional development. He speaks about children as being intrinsically worthwhile. He does not center his argument around scientific facts of the fetus. He says that all abortions (or rather death of the fetus) is serious and is not something to be taken lightly.
Interesting and puzzling (and why) from each article.
Interesting (A. Book VI p.179) “On the subject of wisdom, we may get what we need once we have considered who it is that we call ‘wise’. Well, it is thought characteristic of a wise person to be able to deliberate well about the things that are good and advantageous to himself, not in specific contexts, e.g. what sorts of things conduce to health, or to physical strength, but what sorts of things conduce to the good in general.”
I thought that this was one of the passages that was clear. Most people think of wise people and not necessarily being book smart, or extremely intelligent in one field, but rather having a grand general knowledge of everyday life.
Puzzling (A. Book VI p.183) “For some people look for what is good for themselves, and thing this is what they should do. It is this view, then, that has given rise to the idea that this sort of person is wise; and yet presumably one’s own well-being is inseparable from managing a household, and from political organization. Again, how one should govern one’s affairs is unclear, and something that needs investigation. “
Maybe I just don’t understand the sentence, but I feel like Aristotle just contradicted himself by saying how one should govern one’s affairs is unclear. Isn’t this what his book is all about? Isn’t he telling people how to do this?
Interesting (H. p.237) “These facts make it obvious that pregnancy is not just one among many other physical conditions; and hence that anyone who genuinely believes that an abortion is comparable to a haircut is or an appendectomy is mistaken.”
I find this very interesting. I think that current debates of abortion rarely stop to think about the seriousness of the situation. They just spit out facts and stats. A lot of people also take pregnancy for granted and do not realize the importance of it. I find that true when people get pregnant in high school. They do not understand the responsibility.
Puzzling (H. p.236) “that the status of the fetus – that issue over which so much ink has been spilled – that is according to virtue theory simply not relevant to the rightness or wrongness of abortion (within ,that is, a secular morality).”
I found this difficult to follow Hursthouse’s reasoning to not include the status of the fetus. I could not find why he thought it was not relevant. I would imagine that the status of the fetus would change the seriousness of the abortion. For example, if the fetus were about to die would the abortion be as “bad” as if the fetus were perfectly healthy?
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Random Acts of Kindness - 2
Today I restocked our water and drinks in our mini fridge. I refilled water bottles and put in the new ones. We (my roommate and I) usually do this together and fill up our own stuff. She was surprised and very thankful that I did this. I think I did this more out of thirst than just trying to be nice though. I had just gotten back from PT and weights so I was upset that we had nothing to drink.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Random Acts of Kindness - 1
My roommate and I have gotten along very well. We have become close friends, and we appreciate each other's company. For my first random act of kindness I emptied her garbage for her. I noticed one day that her trash can was getting very full, so I walked down the hall and dumped it out for her. When she came back from class she was very excited. At first she thought that people come in and do that for us every week, but I told her I did it for her. She thanked me and told me that I didn't need to do it. She said that she wants to empty my trash now. I guess I started something.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Virtue
What is it about a particular characteristic that makes it virtue? Distinguishes it from its associated vices?
The main theme I got from the reading was the existence of balance. Moderation between the two extremes of a characteristic made it desirable and beneficial to the most people, and did the most good for the most amount of people. This characteristic does good for the whole society, not just for the individual. That is another aspect of all good characteristics. For example, when Aristotle discuses open-handedness, he contrasted it to wastefulness and avariciousness. He found the balance between the extremes.
(I found this chart off of SparkNotes...I hope this explains better what I was trying to say. It's at the end of the page. http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/ethics/characters.html)
Do you agree with Aristotle that the closer you come to having these characteristics, the closer you will come to having a fulfilling life? What evidence have you drawn upon?
I agree that the listed ideal characteristics create a fulfilling life. A life full of courage, boldness, open-handedness, reason, and truth (to name a few) leads to a happiness, which supports the existence of a fulfilling life. Through balance, a live of prosperity can be lived out day to day. A good example I can draw from comes from Book IX 9-11. This section talks about the balance of friends. Aristotle states the important of a balance of the number of friends you possess. Too many results in detached relationships, and too little do not allow for growth and full experience. He also makes it a point to determine what kind of people your friends are. He discusses the importance of the character of your company.
The main theme I got from the reading was the existence of balance. Moderation between the two extremes of a characteristic made it desirable and beneficial to the most people, and did the most good for the most amount of people. This characteristic does good for the whole society, not just for the individual. That is another aspect of all good characteristics. For example, when Aristotle discuses open-handedness, he contrasted it to wastefulness and avariciousness. He found the balance between the extremes.
(I found this chart off of SparkNotes...I hope this explains better what I was trying to say. It's at the end of the page. http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/ethics/characters.html)
Do you agree with Aristotle that the closer you come to having these characteristics, the closer you will come to having a fulfilling life? What evidence have you drawn upon?
I agree that the listed ideal characteristics create a fulfilling life. A life full of courage, boldness, open-handedness, reason, and truth (to name a few) leads to a happiness, which supports the existence of a fulfilling life. Through balance, a live of prosperity can be lived out day to day. A good example I can draw from comes from Book IX 9-11. This section talks about the balance of friends. Aristotle states the important of a balance of the number of friends you possess. Too many results in detached relationships, and too little do not allow for growth and full experience. He also makes it a point to determine what kind of people your friends are. He discusses the importance of the character of your company.
Aristotle Passages (Interesting/Puzzling)
X.9 (p. 256)
“However this may be: if, as has been said, a person needs to be brought up and habituated in the right way in order to be good, and then live accordingly under a regime of decent behavior, neither counter-voluntarily nor voluntarily doing what is bad; and if this will come about when people live in accordance with a kind of intelligence or correct principle of order, with the force to make itself felt: well, a father’s prescriptions do not have the requisite force, or the element of compulsion; nor indeed do the orders of any single man, unless he is a king or similar person; but law does have the power to compel, being a form of words deriving from a kind of wisdom and intelligence. “
I found this passage interesting because I believe that your family can shape you into anything they want. Parental influences determine the character and the behavior of the children. This, in turn, can make a person good or bad. I find this rather depressing, because is it really the child’s fault then that they are bad? Should the parent receive the punishment if the child acts out in school? Should all children be viewed as innocent?
I.12 (p.12)
“Thus the dead do seem to be somehow affected when their loved ones do well, and similarly when they do badly, but in such a way and to such an extent as neither to render the happy unhappy nor do anything else of the sort.”
I found this passage particularly puzzling because I did not see Aristotle’s connection from living beings to those who are dead. I do not understand how a person who is dead can be affected by anything. I can understand that the physical body of the person may be harmed, but I do not see how anything else can be changed. Is he saying that the dead people having a living soul? Why is it necessary to be concerned with the people that are dead?
“However this may be: if, as has been said, a person needs to be brought up and habituated in the right way in order to be good, and then live accordingly under a regime of decent behavior, neither counter-voluntarily nor voluntarily doing what is bad; and if this will come about when people live in accordance with a kind of intelligence or correct principle of order, with the force to make itself felt: well, a father’s prescriptions do not have the requisite force, or the element of compulsion; nor indeed do the orders of any single man, unless he is a king or similar person; but law does have the power to compel, being a form of words deriving from a kind of wisdom and intelligence. “
I found this passage interesting because I believe that your family can shape you into anything they want. Parental influences determine the character and the behavior of the children. This, in turn, can make a person good or bad. I find this rather depressing, because is it really the child’s fault then that they are bad? Should the parent receive the punishment if the child acts out in school? Should all children be viewed as innocent?
I.12 (p.12)
“Thus the dead do seem to be somehow affected when their loved ones do well, and similarly when they do badly, but in such a way and to such an extent as neither to render the happy unhappy nor do anything else of the sort.”
I found this passage particularly puzzling because I did not see Aristotle’s connection from living beings to those who are dead. I do not understand how a person who is dead can be affected by anything. I can understand that the physical body of the person may be harmed, but I do not see how anything else can be changed. Is he saying that the dead people having a living soul? Why is it necessary to be concerned with the people that are dead?
Friday, September 5, 2008
Humanity's Common Goal
Is there a common goal that all human beings are interested in reaching? I believe there is. I believe that all humans want to be successful, have good health, receive a good education, and live for a purpose. But for this discussion’s sake, I will focus on the pursuit of success.
The idea of success can be more complicated than it seems. Different people have different ideas of what successful means. For some people, a successful life is one that is filled with money, for others a life rich in religion, for others a healthy physical body, for others a life of servitude is seen as successful. If everyone defines personal goals, and works diligently towards them, success is inevitable (or at least the feeling of success). Keeping people motivated is a huge stride towards all people living a successful life. Interaction and networking among friends, family, and peers allow for a higher success rate among people. Also, among all people, morality must be established. This allows people to work within a framework of specified rights and wrongs. Although this seems impossible, this establishment would allow for all humans to respect one another and aid in each others success stories. Evidence can be seen through the existence of many self-help books. Everyone is trying to better him or herself, which in turn allows for a more productive, successful life. Also, the focus on other people’s success stories through the news or TV programs like “The Big Idea” glorify the presence of success.
Through close relationships and a common moral ground, people will support each other in their quest for success. Evidence that people who have a common moral standing work better than those who have opposing morals can be seen through the work of a church. Focus on a greater being draws people close together. All of the people in the congregation hope to reach a successful life through the help of their god. Their success can all be measured on a similar scale, which makes it more easily obtainable. Also, networking and the formation of friendships allows people to become successful because of the support system. No person can get through life on their own. Everyone needs someone to back them up or to give them a helping hand at some point in his or her life. For example, it is very difficult for a young entrepreneur to start a business alone, with no employees, customers, or business partners.
The idea of success can be more complicated than it seems. Different people have different ideas of what successful means. For some people, a successful life is one that is filled with money, for others a life rich in religion, for others a healthy physical body, for others a life of servitude is seen as successful. If everyone defines personal goals, and works diligently towards them, success is inevitable (or at least the feeling of success). Keeping people motivated is a huge stride towards all people living a successful life. Interaction and networking among friends, family, and peers allow for a higher success rate among people. Also, among all people, morality must be established. This allows people to work within a framework of specified rights and wrongs. Although this seems impossible, this establishment would allow for all humans to respect one another and aid in each others success stories. Evidence can be seen through the existence of many self-help books. Everyone is trying to better him or herself, which in turn allows for a more productive, successful life. Also, the focus on other people’s success stories through the news or TV programs like “The Big Idea” glorify the presence of success.
Through close relationships and a common moral ground, people will support each other in their quest for success. Evidence that people who have a common moral standing work better than those who have opposing morals can be seen through the work of a church. Focus on a greater being draws people close together. All of the people in the congregation hope to reach a successful life through the help of their god. Their success can all be measured on a similar scale, which makes it more easily obtainable. Also, networking and the formation of friendships allows people to become successful because of the support system. No person can get through life on their own. Everyone needs someone to back them up or to give them a helping hand at some point in his or her life. For example, it is very difficult for a young entrepreneur to start a business alone, with no employees, customers, or business partners.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Gorgias 3-62
Gorgias: pp. 3-62
Gorgias: “You don’t know the half of it, Socrates! Almost every accomplishment falls within the scope of rhetoric. I’ve got good evidence of this. Often in the past, when I’ve gone with my brother or some other doctor to one of their patients who was refusing to take his medicine or to let the doctor operate on him or cauterize him, the doctor proved incapable of persuading the patient to accept his treatment, but I succeeded, even though I didn’t have any other expertise to draw on except rhetoric. Think of a community – any community you like – and I assure you that if an expert in rhetoric and a doctor went there and had to compete against each other for election as that community’s doctor by addressing the Assembly or some other public meeting, the doctor would be left standing, and the effective speaker would win the election, if that’s what he wanted. In fact, it doesn’t matter what his rival’s profession is: the rhetorician would persuade them to choose him, and the other person would fail. It’s inconceivable that a professional of any stamp could speak more persuasively in front of a crowd than a rhetorician on any topic at all … A rhetorician is capable of speaking effectively against all comers, whatever the issue, and can consequently be more persuasive in front of crowds about – to cut a long story short- anything he likes. Nevertheless, the fact that he’s capable of getting people to think less highly of doctors and their fellow professionals doesn’t mean that he has to do so. Just like any competitive skill, rhetoric should be used when morally appropriate.” (p. 19-20)
“Rhetoric is the only area of expertise you need to learn. You can ignore all the rest and still get the better of the professionals.” (p. 24)
Gorgias believes that power is a desirable trait, and that people who posses it are inherently happy. This passage reveals the sense of great pride which comes with victory over another person. Gorgias loves to be in control and hates to be confronted with obstacles. Gorgias finds rhetoric so superior to any other trade, which he claims that “almost every accomplishment falls within the scope of rhetoric.”
Socrates (in response to Gorgias): “That was why I was astonished at the suggestion you made a little later that a rhetorician might actually put his rhetoric to immoral use; I thought you were being inconsistent and so I said what I said about how our discussion would be worthwhile if you were like me and saw the profit in being proved wrong, but that otherwise we should just forget it. And now we’ve reached a point in our enquiry where you can see for yourself that we’ve come to the opposite conclusion – that a rhetorician is incapable of putting his rhetoric to immoral use and of deliberately doing wrong.” (p. 26)
Socrates is making his point that rhetoric should not be used to belittle or promote injustice. This passage reveals the fact that Socrates expects a respectful discussion. He does not want emotions to run into the facts. He is clear at his intensions, and tells Gorgias up front that he believes he is wrong. Socrates cares about others, and cares that know what is right and wrong. I believe his greatest challenge to Gorgias was the reformatting of his argumentation. He wanted to teach him how to be useful and productive.
Polus: “But of course they do! Rhetoricians are the most powerful members of their communities, aren’t they?” (p.34)
Although the passage is short, I believe this statement made by Polus summaries his entire argument. Because Polus was trained, or training, or be a rhetorician he wanted to believe that it was the most powerful an envied job. He did not know if this was true or not, but he desperately wanted it to be. His sense of self-doubt rang clear through the discussion between himself and Socrates. He would make an assertion, but immediately follow it with a question for the sake of approval. Polus did not think that the concepts of right and wrong played into rhetoric, or were of any importance.
Socrates (in response to Polus): “In my opinion, it takes true goodness to make a man or woman happy, and an immoral, wicked person is unhappy.” (p.43)
“You’re producing no compelling reason why I should agree with you; all you’re doing is calling upon a horde of false witnesses against me to support your attempt to dislodge me from my inheritance, the truth… I’d almost go so far as to say that in their case there’s nothing more admirable than knowledge and nothing more contemptible than ignorance, since that would amount to knowledge or ignorance about what it is to be happy and what it is to be unhappy.” (p.45)
Socrates shows his maturity and respect for the art of argumentation towards Polus. He wants to teach the young scholar how to argue and debate, and how to argue and debate about passionate ideas. If Socrates did not want Polus to transform his ways, he would not have pointed out his flaws. Socrates response to Polus’s assertions also reinforces his deep interest in morality and right verse wrong. He wishes to include others, and share his passion for understanding.
Gorgias: “You don’t know the half of it, Socrates! Almost every accomplishment falls within the scope of rhetoric. I’ve got good evidence of this. Often in the past, when I’ve gone with my brother or some other doctor to one of their patients who was refusing to take his medicine or to let the doctor operate on him or cauterize him, the doctor proved incapable of persuading the patient to accept his treatment, but I succeeded, even though I didn’t have any other expertise to draw on except rhetoric. Think of a community – any community you like – and I assure you that if an expert in rhetoric and a doctor went there and had to compete against each other for election as that community’s doctor by addressing the Assembly or some other public meeting, the doctor would be left standing, and the effective speaker would win the election, if that’s what he wanted. In fact, it doesn’t matter what his rival’s profession is: the rhetorician would persuade them to choose him, and the other person would fail. It’s inconceivable that a professional of any stamp could speak more persuasively in front of a crowd than a rhetorician on any topic at all … A rhetorician is capable of speaking effectively against all comers, whatever the issue, and can consequently be more persuasive in front of crowds about – to cut a long story short- anything he likes. Nevertheless, the fact that he’s capable of getting people to think less highly of doctors and their fellow professionals doesn’t mean that he has to do so. Just like any competitive skill, rhetoric should be used when morally appropriate.” (p. 19-20)
“Rhetoric is the only area of expertise you need to learn. You can ignore all the rest and still get the better of the professionals.” (p. 24)
Gorgias believes that power is a desirable trait, and that people who posses it are inherently happy. This passage reveals the sense of great pride which comes with victory over another person. Gorgias loves to be in control and hates to be confronted with obstacles. Gorgias finds rhetoric so superior to any other trade, which he claims that “almost every accomplishment falls within the scope of rhetoric.”
Socrates (in response to Gorgias): “That was why I was astonished at the suggestion you made a little later that a rhetorician might actually put his rhetoric to immoral use; I thought you were being inconsistent and so I said what I said about how our discussion would be worthwhile if you were like me and saw the profit in being proved wrong, but that otherwise we should just forget it. And now we’ve reached a point in our enquiry where you can see for yourself that we’ve come to the opposite conclusion – that a rhetorician is incapable of putting his rhetoric to immoral use and of deliberately doing wrong.” (p. 26)
Socrates is making his point that rhetoric should not be used to belittle or promote injustice. This passage reveals the fact that Socrates expects a respectful discussion. He does not want emotions to run into the facts. He is clear at his intensions, and tells Gorgias up front that he believes he is wrong. Socrates cares about others, and cares that know what is right and wrong. I believe his greatest challenge to Gorgias was the reformatting of his argumentation. He wanted to teach him how to be useful and productive.
Polus: “But of course they do! Rhetoricians are the most powerful members of their communities, aren’t they?” (p.34)
Although the passage is short, I believe this statement made by Polus summaries his entire argument. Because Polus was trained, or training, or be a rhetorician he wanted to believe that it was the most powerful an envied job. He did not know if this was true or not, but he desperately wanted it to be. His sense of self-doubt rang clear through the discussion between himself and Socrates. He would make an assertion, but immediately follow it with a question for the sake of approval. Polus did not think that the concepts of right and wrong played into rhetoric, or were of any importance.
Socrates (in response to Polus): “In my opinion, it takes true goodness to make a man or woman happy, and an immoral, wicked person is unhappy.” (p.43)
“You’re producing no compelling reason why I should agree with you; all you’re doing is calling upon a horde of false witnesses against me to support your attempt to dislodge me from my inheritance, the truth… I’d almost go so far as to say that in their case there’s nothing more admirable than knowledge and nothing more contemptible than ignorance, since that would amount to knowledge or ignorance about what it is to be happy and what it is to be unhappy.” (p.45)
Socrates shows his maturity and respect for the art of argumentation towards Polus. He wants to teach the young scholar how to argue and debate, and how to argue and debate about passionate ideas. If Socrates did not want Polus to transform his ways, he would not have pointed out his flaws. Socrates response to Polus’s assertions also reinforces his deep interest in morality and right verse wrong. He wishes to include others, and share his passion for understanding.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
