Conclusion: Virtue requires reason
(i) Virtue requires habituation:
a) Every virtue causes its possessors to be in a good state and to perform their functions well. (1106a-17)
b) The virtue of a human being will likewise be the state that makes a human. (1106a-23)
c) Virtue of character results from habit. (1103a-17)
d) A state of character results from the repetition of similar activities. (1103b-21)
e) Continued good actions can lead to virtue. (i)
(i) Habituation requires reason:
a) Actions should accord with the correct reason. (1103b-33)
b) Ignorance leads to bad actions. (i)
c) Every vicious person is ignorant of the actions he must do or avoid, and this error makes people unjust, and in general bad. (1110b-29)
d) For in the continent and the incontinent person we praise their reason, that is to say, the part of the soul that has reason, because it exhorts them correctly and toward what is best. (1102b-15)
e) Reason leads to a lack of ignorance which leads to good actions or habits. (i)
(i) The soul has rational and non rational parts to it, and the rational side is important to virtue:
a) One part of the soul is non rational, while one has reason. (1102a-29)
b) By human virtue we mean virtue of the soul. (1102a-16)
c) The rational part [of the soul] appears, as we said, to share in reason. (1102b-29)
d) There is a rational side to the soul that uses reason. (i)
(i) The souls rational side is necessary for virtue:
a) Happiness is a certain sort of activity of the soul in accord with complete virtue. (1102a-6)
b) The souls reason allows for god actions. (i)
c) Good actions are good habits which allow for virtue. (i)
d) Complete virtue comes from good activities by the soul. (i)
e) The rational side of the soul uses reason to perform good habits which allows for virtue. (i)
My question to Aristotle would lie in the premise: ignorance leads to bad actions. Ignorance does not always lead to bad actions; often ignorance simply leads to apathy or mere lack of action. Additionally, bad actions are not always caused by ignorance. Often they are caused by knowledge of reason and a conscious choice to disregard what is reasonable. For the argument, this means that in the following premise not all ignorant people are vicious thus they are not unjust and not bad people as the premise suggests.
ReplyDeleteI was confused when I reached premise 3a, “one part of the soul is non rational, while one has reason.” Are you distinguishing between the irrational and rational parts of the soul or are you distinguishing between the two aspects of the irrational part of the soul? Although the vegetative aspect of the irrational soul has nothing in common with reason, the appetitive aspect, which is characterized by desire, does. The appetitive aspect governs our impulses while the rational part of the soul controls these impulses.
ReplyDeleteThe latter part of premise 3, “the rational side is important to virtue” and premise 4, “the soul’s rational side is necessary for virtue” is essentially saying the same thing. Were you trying to express different ideas in the two premises? Also, I agree with Cristina’s comment on how she is confused with which irrational and rational parts you are discussing, because Aristotle writes, “the nonrational [part], then, as well [as the whole soul] apparently has two parts” (1102b-29). There is a part of the irrational, the appetites, that “shares in reason” like you mention in c of premise 3. I think the outline would be stronger if you clarify the last two premises.
ReplyDeleteI was confused at first while reading your second premise because I didn’t see how the sub-premises showed how reason is necessary for habituation but your implied premise: e) Reason leads to a lack of ignorance which leads to good actions or habits. (i) cleared it up for me. I agree with most of your points and you had a very articulate argument. I thought maybe you could have laid out definitions for some of the terms you used, but it didn’t take away from the overall argument.
ReplyDeleteTdmccy, I disagree with you. I'll try writing a friendly debate with you about it. You say, "Ignorance does not always lead to bad actions; often ignorance simply leads to apathy or mere lack of action. Additionally, bad actions are not always caused by ignorance." First of all, the way that sentence was stated, it seems to me you are saying you consider apathy not to be a bad thing. Apathy to me is a horrible thing. But that is an entirely different debate.
ReplyDeleteWhat is an example of a time someone did something terrible and knew that what they were doing was terrible? I can think of countless times when ignorance caused evil. People justified slavery with the bible. They did not know how wrong slavery is, they were just ignorant and raised that way. The same goes with racists. I suppose you could argue Hitler or Al-Qaeda knew what they were doing, but at the same time, I think they were/are ignorant too. They are brilliant in their planning and scheming, but at the same time they lack understanding of other people and the understanding that all people deserve life. Also, they believe that what they are doing is right. It is hard to argue with you against this, because I don't know exactly your examples for when someone wasn't ignorant and evil at the same time. I understand how ignorance does not always cause evil, which is probably true. Still, evil always contains a bit of ignorance, although ignorance might not always contain evil. Example: Sarah hears a rumor that Katie steals cars. Sarah is not sure (ignorant) but decides to spread rumors about her, and ruins Katie's reputation/gets her fired. Sarah later finds out the rumor isn't true.
Ignorance does not cause bad actions when people don't act upon it, though. Which maybe this is what you should try to argue instead. Example: A student does not understand chemistry very well. He decides not to become a scientist, and becomes an advertiser instead.
It is impossible to be aware of everything, so therefore we are all ignorant of something. But we aren't all doing bad actions. It is when we act out of our ignorance that bad actions occur. I know there are a few holes in my argument, but this got extremely long, and I would rather hear from you before writing more. Thanks for writing a thought provoking comment! It really interested me.
David,
ReplyDeleteI think one thing that would be helpful and making your arguments a little more clear would be to provide a definition of "good" that you use in premises 1a and 1e. Also, a definition of "bad" as used in premises 2b and 2c would help in a similar way. Lastly, premise 3 and premise 4 are similar in the way that they both work to argue that the rational part of the soul is important for virtue. In order to avoid repetition for the sake of your argument, I would suggest either combining the two or eliminating one.