In this week's readings, Aristotle claims that to do the good, you must know the good. Last week we learned that Plato had a different view on "goodness." Plato believed that you must know the good, to do the good. Although both views make a lot of sense, I have to agree with Aristotle. Before doing the good, you must know what that good is. Every person is different, but we all have typically the same ideas when it comes to what is right and what is wrong. Aristotle and Plato's views on goodness are very similar to the psychological studies on nature versus nurture. Although it is a fact that both nature and nurture contribute to a person's values, the question is whether people are born with virtue and goodness or whether they had to be taught virtue. I thought of nature versus nurture in class when we were discussing whether or not to report an injustice, such as child abuse or something as "trivial" (to many college students) as cheating on an assignment. While some people in the class believed that reporting an injustice was the most beneficial to all parties, some people made a valid point that "what if they were taught to mind their own business"? Many people were taught as young children to mind their own business when it came to other people. I was taught to mind my own business because it would be better for myself, but growing up I realized that it was an injustice to not report something as terrible as abuse or cheating, whether it be on a test or with a significant other. Nature is to Plato as Nurture is to Aristotle. Although I agree with Aristotle's views on goodness, I can't help but also agree with Plato that every person is born with innate goodness and that sometimes nature trumps nurture.
I agree with both Plato’s and Aristotle’s understanding on doing good. We mentioned in class that Plato believes one has to understand a concept before practicing it; Aristotle believes one has to practice an idea first before being able to understand it. When I go back to the instance we heard in class of a swimmer who was thrown into the water but learned to swim and then the intellectual who studied swimming for so long and knew how to but had never put it into practice yet, I realized both knew how to swim but learned it in different ways. The actual swimmer put it into practice before understanding the concept of swimming: he/she realized the movements and technique required to swim firsthand. The intellectual found knowledge about the art of swimming and knew so much about it, that he/she knows how to do the act. Therefore, I believe both concepts can be true depending on the way in which you learn it. I also believe that nature and nurture play important roles in the lives of individuals. Some people are born with certain ideas and traits instilled in them while other lessons are taught over time. People may group up desiring to good and help others, and some people may have to be taught other virtues.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you say about the nature vs nurture aspect of how these two philosophers relate to each other. And if i may add one to your comment of innate goodness i think it is very true that everyone is born with the innate ability to do good and the innate ability to do evil. And with this extended definition i think it would give more coverage for evil people such as Hitler or Stalin to be on the same plain as Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr. Allow me to explain. With the original definition of innate goodness some may argue that the two states dictators had no goodness within them at all. However with the definition i gave they could still fall true in the definition. They had just as much capacity for good as evil, and with their free will they made that choice to do evil and their possible virtues became vices.
ReplyDelete