The idea of being a virtuous person involves being just, righteous, brave, etc. The list could go on and on, but one thing remains constant: these characteristics were not obtained through birth. Instead virtue is learned through teaching, and from this teaching we are able to decide whether to be virtuous or not. According to Aristotle a person must be in the habit of doing virtuous acts at a mean in order to acquire the title of being a “good” virtuous person (“Nicomachean Ethics” 18).
With virtue there is a good or bad approach. We are not born with either good or bad outlooks on virtue, but are rather taught, and through habit with either acquire a just or unjust outlook on life (“Nicomachean” 19). When it comes to obtaining a virtuous status, a person has to obtain an early habit of virtue. Someone who knows virtue and practices it at a young age is more likely to be virtuous later on in life. However, it is important that when a person learns of virtue he/she learns of its opposite. By learning of virtues opposite it allows us to find a middle ground so that we are not over-virtuous.
I know it is hard to imagine being “over-virtuous,” but it is possible. It is important to not be excessive or have a deficiency of virtue. A middle-ground is necessary to preserve healthy and balanced virtue. Only out of habit is this middle-ground of virtue obtainable. There are ways of experiencing virtue in a way that we do not become overly virtuous, but rather are strong and capable of being virtuous (“Nicomachean” 20). As Aristotle puts it, “It is similar with bravery; habituation in disdain for frightening situations and in standing firm against them makes us become brave, and once we have become brave we shall be most capable of standing firm (Nicomachean 20).
It is true that in order to reach the status of “good” in terms of virtue, one must find the mean or middle-ground of a virtue. Aristotle goes on to say, “This is enough, then, to make it clear that in every case the intermediate state is praised, but we must sometimes incline toward the excess, sometimes toward the deficiency; for that is the easiest way to hit the intermediate and good condition” (“Nicomachean” 30). There is a balance that we all must find in order to be labeled as “good” with virtue. My question for Aristotle now is: do people lacking knowledge of the opposite of virtue always tend to be overly virtuous?
Aristotle would answer that question with a resounding “no”. My thinking behind that would be because there is no knowledge of virtues opposite an individual has any option other than that of being overly virtuous. A balance could not exist if there is nothing there other then being completely virtuous. The only habit that person would pick up would be that of being overly virtuous.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree with you that virtue is something Aristotle feels is acquired through teaching. He even clearly states that no virtue can come to us naturally. However, I think it is essential to distinguish what type of virtue he is referring to. According to the philosopher in the first few paragraphs of Book II, there are two types of virtue: virtue of thought and virtue of character. Whereas virtue of thought arises from teaching, needing experience and time, virtue of character results from habit. Therefore, virtue of character cannot be acquired through learning because it is something we can develop out of instinct; for example, a woman’s instinct/virtue to be maternal. This maternal action is not something every women possesses therefore it is not a characteristic that one can be born with. The woman gets the maternal action because circumstances call for it, not because she learned it. This is not to say that virtue of character cannot be acquired through learning, rather if obtained in this manner it needs practice as well. In contrast to virtue of thought that only needs learning and not habit.
I also agree with you as to what your saying about about there being two types of virtue. However, I feel as though you contradict yourself in your comment. You bring up the virtue of character and say later on that it is a thing of habit, which I clearly stated throughout my post. Then you say something I don't quite agree with. You say that a "womans instinct/virtue" and are implying that instict and virtue are the same thing. This is not true because according to Aristotle virtue can only be achieved by people because we have reason. Humans like animals have instinct, but virtue is not linked to instict because you have to be aware of the fact that you are doing acts of virtue. Also in response to your comment on there being to types of virtue, I understand what you mean when you differentiate between the two. However, I believe they are also linked to one another. In order to first be a virtuous person, one must learn (thought) what virtue is. Only then can someone fulfill a habitual life (character) of virtue.
Post a Comment