Socratic questioning session #1

Remove all ads!

What is virtue?

 

What is virtue.. perhaps we need to look at some of the abilities of virtue, and in what context it fits to get an idea of what it could be.

Our goal however would be to find a consistency. That being the same behavior for everyone, in all situations, and at all times. You all agree?

I hope you do else prove me wrong.

However as for virtue, as a singularity, behind the i.e. cardinal virtues, I must admit I don't know. Can anyone remember the cardinal virtues?

And what virtues otherwise do you know of?

(not speaking to you personally Erebus, but to everyone in general)

English is not my first language, but I know the translation. However even the translation I rarely use.

What origin does the word have? and what meaning is in that word? (greek and latin speakers, please step forwards)

 

virtue, manliness; strenght in the face of
adversity = Virtus (latin)

There you go. And I've had five courses of latin and still I have to search a simple word like this from the internet. Figures...

 

I always thought that a virtue was: "a commendable quality."

 

well this was a question to try and find the origin of the word virtue that most connect with what you say Sir Bel, however to understand it better it is often connected with the meaning the word had in the beginning.

Like understanding the plot in a book, you have to read from page 1

What the word may mean now is a good question however, good question Sir Bel.

Erebus, what did you mean with virtue?

 

Virtue in German means "Tugend". Tugend is connected to "Tauglich" (able). And "Tugend" (virtue) stems clearly from "Tun" (Do).

So, "Tugend" would mean something like "being able to do". Or maybe "do useful/be useful".

So, biggest virtue can be found in a being who is always able to do it. That somehow would explain the link to manlihood.

 

Virtue has three Western senses.

Classically (Greek-Roman), virtue refers to being true to your nature as a MAN. This was particularly embodied in four subvirtues - justice, temperance, courage, and strength - also called the "cardinal virtues". These cardinal virtues distinguished men from animals, and any human who lacked these virtues was, in that sense, bestial. It was the duty (not the right!) of every man to understand the right (justice); to accumulate the power to carry out that right (strength); to muster the bravery to act on that power and wisdom (courage); and to learn the prudence to not go beyond one's limitations (temperance).

Theologically (Christian), virtue refers to being true to your nature vis-a-vis GOD - that is, as a redeemed man. This was embodied in three subvirtues - faith, hope, and love - also called the "theological virtues". These virtues distinguished redeemed men from unsaved men. The truly virtuous man (in the Christian sense) trusts his God and His direction (faith), believes the universe has a purpose (hope), and loves his fellow men, both friends and enemies (love).

Machiavelli came up with his own redefinition of virtue, which can be summarized as "reason, order, and power". This upends both the classical and Christian definitions by making virtue bestial again - take what you can, when you can, and keep it as long as you can, however you can.

Some would argue that toleration has come to be a modern virtue, but toleration is really something of an unambitious anti-virtue (in these past three senses).

So in Western philosophy of virtue you have four classes of people. Virtuous classicists are upstanding citizens who are strong, but tightly self-controlled. Virtuous Christians are loving, faithful, and redemptive servants of their God. Virtuous Machiavellians are crafty, clever, and calculating. And the vast mass of humanity falls into none of these three camps - relegated to moral weakness and spiritual flabbiness.

 

very nice posts.

So from this can we conclude not what virtue is, but that the idea of virtue and virtues (which must be a sort of offsprings of virtue) have changed throughout history?

So to define what virtue itself is, we must find what it has in common in all these instances, and then think and see if it will continue to be a consistency no matter what happens.

I'm looking up in some word history books I got I find out more =)

 

I agree with GM, but in my own mind virtue is a pure heart. To do something that doesn't command a reward so that what's right is done. Basically sacrifice for the greater good. If you could sacrifice yourself to save a child, would you? Most people will say "yes, of course", but as we see in hard times, it's rarely ever excercised.

 

What each of these definitions of virtues have in common is that they (supposedly) reflect what a man IS and what a man is supposed to BE - from which naturally flows what a man DOES. What has changed through history is the perception of what makes a man a man. Is it his biological supremacy over the rest of nature? Is it his unique relation vis-a-vis God? Or is it his ability to impose his will on nature (science) and other men (politics)?

There's a reason that virtue is such an unpopular word today. It implies a hard-won moral superiority which comes both as a result of who one IS and what one DOES. Regardless of what particular virtue you live by, virtue is hardly compatible with a postmodern toleration that refrains from value judgements.

 

so, (just assuming here) according to you GM. If I ask you,

"What is virtue?"

then you'd say:

It's the idea of what a man is supposed to be according to a variable morale-codex?
(morale-codex might be a bit off, but thinking whatever morales/actions are thought of as virtues)

Would that be understood correctly?

@Mystra's Chosen
I have to admit I'd never say I would do that
now if the event actually happened, I don't know if I would do it or not.

 

Lokken...

what if it was your child? It's all relative. I'm sure you would sacrifice yourself for someone.

 

I believe that Virtue is a human concept therefore it is subject to our personal opinions and so there can be no "right" answer.

 

I think Rastilin's answer is the right one.



OK I'll put something sensible;
I thought the theological virtues were faith, hope and charity. I could have saved a bundle if I'd known the last one was just love.

[ September 16, 2003, 10:01: Message edited by: Bluin ]

 

Lokken - yes, that's right, but...although the exact moral-codex may be "variable", in the sense that different people measure virtue by different standards, these "variabilities" are incompatible with each other. For example, the Christian virtue of love - love God, friends, and enemies - is incompatible with Machiavellian virtue (God is dead, manipulate friends, defeat enemies) and classical virtue (the gods are absent, love friends prudentially, exact justice from enemies). [Yes, medieval Christian thinkers combined the classical and Christian virtues into a cohesive group of seven, but the ruthless Greek and Roman heroes of olde would not have been impressed by the Christian reinterpretation.]

So you couldn't, say, have a moral-codex which supposed that all ideas were of equal value, that there was no truth, that seeking is more important than finding, etc., and still claim it as "virtue". It can be tolerant, flexible, egalitarian, postmodern, etc., but not truly "virtuous". Even if, as Rastilin claims, there can be no right answer, virtue has to suppose that there IS a right answer - and that this is it. Virtue, for good or ill, has backbone.

 

If all you say is true, then who dictates what what virtue is?

 

yourself Erebus.

 

Then who shall guide us to what virtues are admirable?

 

You?

 

Be critic, if you find a guide's virtues admirable, then they are admirable to you and thus would be considered virtues.
If not, then you would say he's a .. whatever

If you look for a singular meaning of virtue, then I'd say it's the idea of a commendable ability. To define further seems dependant on the point of view of people.