On natural and artificial virtues. I'm going to try and keep this entry short.
A natural virtue seems to be a virtue that is somewhat universal, could apply to any society, like being good natured or intelligent would be esteemed all over the world. I got a bit lost in understanding Hume during his explanation on natural virtues, somewhere in his comments on pride.
I understood what he meant by artificial virtues, however, and that helped me to better understand what a natural virtue was and how to identify it. An artificial virtue is a man made virtue established solely based on what people thought was best for society such as "justice, laws, modesty, good-manners" (3.3.1.9) "All these are mere human contrivances for the interest of society." (3.3.1.9)
One sentence that particularly confused me was also in 3.3.1.9 "It follows, that sympathy is the source of the esteem, which we pay to all artificial virtues."
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
Hume blog 1 for 9/22
I know I'm cheating a bit, posting this blog after I've already done the readings on Hume, but I don't think that I'm really grasping Hume all that well, so can't really answer the questions involved in this assignment as well as I could if I understood Hume well. So I'm going to go ahead and pretend that I have never read Hume and answer accordingly.
That our emotional state is influenced by that of those around us. Certainly true, sympathy seems to be a very powerful force. But does this always apply? No, I don't think so. With myself I am generally a very sympathetic person (or empathetic would seem to also be a good word for this situation), I'm very sensitive to what others feel, especially if I am very close to that person emotionally. There are times, however, that the emotions of others don't influence me so directly, but really confuse me, like when I come home and I can tell that my roomates have been fighting. I wasn't there for the fight and their not fighting now, but I can sense it and instead of feeling like "well their angry, and I feel angry too" I'm more likely to feel confused and wary and hide in my room until everything blows over. And I often feel my own emotions stubbornly in the face of the emotions of others. I know that Hume means that the emotions of others influence me but they don't necessarily determine my own emotions.
"The second is that our feelings about our own situation are influenced by how we see our situation in comparison to that of others," very true. Seeing other people so happy when I'm unhappy makes me even more so, or if I'm in a good mood and someone else isn't they kind of bring me down.
"The third is that we like pleasure and try to avoid discomfort or pain." This is also generally true, it is natural to do so. But, again not always the case. There is a difference between seeking overall pleasure and seeking instant gratification. We don't always stive for the pleasure of the moment but face pain or discomfort in order to acheive a more rewarding pleasure. Take school for instance. Nobody wants to get up early to go to class (it's pretty sad when you get to college and suddenly 9 a.m. is too early) more class, possibly with homework in between class, work, and stay up until 3 a.m. doing their homework (which may or may not get finished by this time) and then repeat the next day. College isn't easy so why do we put ourselves through constant stress and sleep deprivation (pain or discomfort) when we could just goof off and do whatever we want with our time (instant gratification)? We do this in order to get an education so that we can get a good paying job so that we can be financially secure and hopefully happy (longterm rewarding pleasure)
That our emotional state is influenced by that of those around us. Certainly true, sympathy seems to be a very powerful force. But does this always apply? No, I don't think so. With myself I am generally a very sympathetic person (or empathetic would seem to also be a good word for this situation), I'm very sensitive to what others feel, especially if I am very close to that person emotionally. There are times, however, that the emotions of others don't influence me so directly, but really confuse me, like when I come home and I can tell that my roomates have been fighting. I wasn't there for the fight and their not fighting now, but I can sense it and instead of feeling like "well their angry, and I feel angry too" I'm more likely to feel confused and wary and hide in my room until everything blows over. And I often feel my own emotions stubbornly in the face of the emotions of others. I know that Hume means that the emotions of others influence me but they don't necessarily determine my own emotions.
"The second is that our feelings about our own situation are influenced by how we see our situation in comparison to that of others," very true. Seeing other people so happy when I'm unhappy makes me even more so, or if I'm in a good mood and someone else isn't they kind of bring me down.
"The third is that we like pleasure and try to avoid discomfort or pain." This is also generally true, it is natural to do so. But, again not always the case. There is a difference between seeking overall pleasure and seeking instant gratification. We don't always stive for the pleasure of the moment but face pain or discomfort in order to acheive a more rewarding pleasure. Take school for instance. Nobody wants to get up early to go to class (it's pretty sad when you get to college and suddenly 9 a.m. is too early) more class, possibly with homework in between class, work, and stay up until 3 a.m. doing their homework (which may or may not get finished by this time) and then repeat the next day. College isn't easy so why do we put ourselves through constant stress and sleep deprivation (pain or discomfort) when we could just goof off and do whatever we want with our time (instant gratification)? We do this in order to get an education so that we can get a good paying job so that we can be financially secure and hopefully happy (longterm rewarding pleasure)
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Aristotle and Doris
"Behavioral variation across a population owes more to situational differences than dispositional differences among persons. Individual dispositional differences are not as stongly behaviorlly individuating as we might have supposed; to a surprising extent we are safest predicting, for a particular situation, that a person will behave pretty much as most others would." (Doris p. 5)
This quote says a great deal to me overall to the comparison between Doris and Aristotle. Doris is making a psychological study of actual human behavior, whereas Aristotle is merely reflecting on what a virtuous person aught to be, not what a person (good or bad) actually is. This is one thing I disliked greatly about Aristotle, and I didn't notice it until now, is that he is focusing on an ideal, believing that a virtuous person acts accordingly in every way to a specific standard, "when they should, as they should..." He leaves no room to err, his moral ideal seems wholly unachievable, no one could be that perfect or always act in so specified a way. And it is less about what is virtuous as opposed to what moral behavior is socially acceptable. Here Doris is saying that a human being can't be so easily categorized as Aristotle attempts to do, given different situations they don't follow such strict guidlines of moral personalities.
This quote says a great deal to me overall to the comparison between Doris and Aristotle. Doris is making a psychological study of actual human behavior, whereas Aristotle is merely reflecting on what a virtuous person aught to be, not what a person (good or bad) actually is. This is one thing I disliked greatly about Aristotle, and I didn't notice it until now, is that he is focusing on an ideal, believing that a virtuous person acts accordingly in every way to a specific standard, "when they should, as they should..." He leaves no room to err, his moral ideal seems wholly unachievable, no one could be that perfect or always act in so specified a way. And it is less about what is virtuous as opposed to what moral behavior is socially acceptable. Here Doris is saying that a human being can't be so easily categorized as Aristotle attempts to do, given different situations they don't follow such strict guidlines of moral personalities.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Aristotle reading 1
Admittedly I'm kind of tired, so I didn't always grasp what was going on in this reading, but I'm hoping to have understood enough to be able to about it. I wasn't crazy about the style either, maybe it was the reading that was making me sleepy. I kept having to double back and re-read many things because I didn't seem to grasp them the first time around.
I'm going to start with the passage that I found puzzling. Actually, what I found the most interesting and the most puzzling are in the same section, so bare with me.
"(I. 10) Is it the case, then, that we should not count anyone else happy, either, so long as he is alive? Must we agree with Solon, and look towards a man's end? And if we should posit that view, is it then that one is really happy-when one is dead?" I found this most intriquing because it seems so true. It seems that everything mankind does in life is only a cumulation towards their end. Even in my last post I said something to that effect: "Do what you can with the time that you have, that is all anyone can do, and you can die fulfilled." Why must it be necessary to stockpile for the end, to judge one's life by where they stood at that moment? Why can't we think of happiness as where we stand here and now, our happiness, unhappiness or ambivalence being subject to the moment? Overall happiness is definitley a good long term goal.
What I found puzzling was the passage between 1100a20 and 1100a30, which was basically how the dead is affected by their descendants and how those descendants would benefit from the happiness and good fortune of their ancestor. This passage is probably not relevant to the class and I realize that it is an ancient cultural belief being discussed, but when I read it it there was this huge resounding "What?" The idea that the happiness one had attained or earned in their lifetime would somehow rub off onto their descendants based solely on the fact that they are that person's descendants and vice versa just seems very ridiculous and alien to me.
I'm going to start with the passage that I found puzzling. Actually, what I found the most interesting and the most puzzling are in the same section, so bare with me.
"(I. 10) Is it the case, then, that we should not count anyone else happy, either, so long as he is alive? Must we agree with Solon, and look towards a man's end? And if we should posit that view, is it then that one is really happy-when one is dead?" I found this most intriquing because it seems so true. It seems that everything mankind does in life is only a cumulation towards their end. Even in my last post I said something to that effect: "Do what you can with the time that you have, that is all anyone can do, and you can die fulfilled." Why must it be necessary to stockpile for the end, to judge one's life by where they stood at that moment? Why can't we think of happiness as where we stand here and now, our happiness, unhappiness or ambivalence being subject to the moment? Overall happiness is definitley a good long term goal.
What I found puzzling was the passage between 1100a20 and 1100a30, which was basically how the dead is affected by their descendants and how those descendants would benefit from the happiness and good fortune of their ancestor. This passage is probably not relevant to the class and I realize that it is an ancient cultural belief being discussed, but when I read it it there was this huge resounding "What?" The idea that the happiness one had attained or earned in their lifetime would somehow rub off onto their descendants based solely on the fact that they are that person's descendants and vice versa just seems very ridiculous and alien to me.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Prosperity
I believe the goal in every living person's life is to achieve prosperity, in whatever way, shape, or form that may be. Usually when I think of prosperity I think of material wealth and being financially comfortable, but prosperity can apply to any number of things depending on the individual's perception, or whatever goal they can reach to fulfill their happiness. One person's prosperity could mean money another' s idea of prosperity could be being fruitfull and having children.
How does one acheive this end, by whatever means necessary I suppose, whatever it takes to fulfill that goal which drives our life. There doesn't seem as if there would be any one way for all people to follow to allow them to acheive their ends. I'm not going to say something silly, like: be moral and you will be prosperous. If you are talking about human goals morality doesn't seem necessary in order to achieve such goals, though for some people it might be important. The only thing I can advise is: Do what you can with the time that you have, that is all anyone can really do, and you can die fulfilled.
I can't really support this, I could give evidence of my own life goals (idea of prosperity) which is to have a good job with a comfortable income, find someone who loves me, and have a family. Really ambitious, right? But that's all I think I need to be happy and fulfilled at the end of my life.
This is where I stand, but I feel as if I really haven't answered the questions as they appear in the syllabus, but I've said all that I had to say. Maybe some new insight will come later.
How does one acheive this end, by whatever means necessary I suppose, whatever it takes to fulfill that goal which drives our life. There doesn't seem as if there would be any one way for all people to follow to allow them to acheive their ends. I'm not going to say something silly, like: be moral and you will be prosperous. If you are talking about human goals morality doesn't seem necessary in order to achieve such goals, though for some people it might be important. The only thing I can advise is: Do what you can with the time that you have, that is all anyone can really do, and you can die fulfilled.
I can't really support this, I could give evidence of my own life goals (idea of prosperity) which is to have a good job with a comfortable income, find someone who loves me, and have a family. Really ambitious, right? But that's all I think I need to be happy and fulfilled at the end of my life.
This is where I stand, but I feel as if I really haven't answered the questions as they appear in the syllabus, but I've said all that I had to say. Maybe some new insight will come later.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
