Aristotle’s
two different kinds of virtues confused me for a minute and made me think about
what makes a person truly a professional at something. Intellectual virtue is
the virtue of knowledge or wisdom. In translation, it means that one knows a
lot about a certain subject and could tell you all about it but has never
actually done it before. On the opposite hand, practical virtue is the virtue
of action. This virtue is not innate. It is just merely out of habit. The
example used in class was to be courageous; one must act as a courageous person
does. I believe this virtue to be true and is more creditable than the other.
One reason is because one might know a lot about a subject and could talk about
it for days and days but until one actually is put in a situation that test
one’s skill then it doesn’t matter. I mean it will definitely help out a lot if
one is educated about it but I feel as though actually doing it says a lot. For
example, the example I mentioned earlier was saying that to be courageous one
must act as a courageous person does. We would hope that the reason people
perform good deeds is out of the goodness of their hearts but we know in
today’s world sometimes that is not always true. People most often perform
those tasks to look good in front of other people, whether it is their friends
or anyone else for that matter. And if someone is doing it for this purpose
then it is not technically being courageous because one is not doing it for the
good, but for his or her own personal gain. One might know a lot about courage
and think about the right thing to do is but until one actually performs it for
no personal gain other than the fact that it improves something else then that
is a person who is courageous.
I also agree that practical virtue is more valuable than intellectual virtue. Being able to do something well is more important than simply knowing how to do it: specifically in regards to the swimming situation we discussed in class. Practical virtue does require more of a useful skill as opposed to only having knowledge about a subject. It is important to practice the virtues you wish to obtain. Sine they are not innate as you stated, we have to make our virtues into habits. That way will eventually be able to act virtuously without having to think about and look to other rational agents to determine the virtuous thing.
ReplyDeleteBeing able to do something well would mean you knew how to do it in the first place. You can only go so far with one of the two, and I think that with the idea of 2 virtues comes a balance between the two. Having an equilibrium of, for example, courage would not only make you a courageous person but give you the knowledge of what to do in a situation where courage is required.
DeleteI believe both intellectual and practical virtues are innate. An intellectual has to learn all he can about the subject or virtue he wishes to be an expert on and will learn it over time while the one with practical virtue learns his/her skill with actual hands-on experience. I feel both virtues are important and can work hand in hand in some cases. It’s kind of similar to doctors; they become medical students that must undergo many courses and learn vast amounts of information concerning their field of study, but they also have to do a residency which grants them real world experience working in a hospital or facility and allows them to put their knowledge and skills to use. In another instance, a child may grow up hearing and learning about how to be courageous but hasn’t actually done anything to deem him as so. Eventually he faces situations in life in which he acts in a way that would give him the title as a courageous person. The virtue of being courageous is no longer just intellectual but also practical, for he acts courageously, too.
ReplyDeleteNobody has innate virtues I do not believe. Every thought, belief, or habit has to has its roots in being developed through the passing of traditions and ideas from others. If someone was raised in complete solitude that person would not know right from wrong, the person wouldn't be able to talk or communicate. Might as well be a neanderthal. This kind of falls under the nature vs nurture argument in that if a person has no other humans in his environment than he will not develop any human qualities/thoughts/beliefs. Of course he will be smarter than all other animals but his basic instincts and desires will be almost identical to them.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to having innate virtues, I don't think there's actually such a thing. Yes, you can be intellectually virtuous, but you are taught those things through teachings and readings. You know how to explain every small detail that may be a part of whatever you have become a professional act, but you have no idea how to execute whatever procedures it takes. When it comes to being practically virtuous in a situation, to me, that person has learned from experience, they didn't just always know how to do something. They've watched someone else at one point in their life and just know how to perform it from them. Like the swimming situation, your dad may have thrown you in to the water and said "Hey, figure out how to swim!" your actions aren't necessarily you knowing how to swim, it's you trying to keep your head above water so you don't drown.
ReplyDeleteI understand what you are saying, however can we really ever know for sure if an intellectual virtue is even a virtue until it comes to a time where the individual must put that virtue into action. I am not saying that intellectual virtue does not exist: I believe that it is possible for someone to know how to do something in their mind before actually doing it in real life. But I do believe that we will never really know for sure if someone has that virtue or not until they put it into action. I may think I am just in my mind but that virtue will never be demonstrated or proven true until it is performed outwardly.
ReplyDeleteI like the point you made about how people may act courageous while not having the good intentions. I hadn't thought about that during class and I feel like there are a lot of people out there that act a certain way in order to be noticed rather than for the actual good of doing the act. But I feel like having a lot of knowledge about the subject would still give you some credit on the subject. In the example of a swimmer that we used in class the person with a PhD in swimming may not be labeled a swimmer, but they know everything they can about the act of doing so. They may not have the experience, but if ever put in that situation that person would know what to do and would not drown.
ReplyDelete