Pardon the heinously awful pun, but I saw it as a perfect (bit of an overstatement) segue to this latest post about the theory of virtue, namely Aristotle's famous theory of the Golden Mean, but also about whether virtue could be considered a means to some end (double-meaning!).
Throughout the history of philosophy, there have been countless definitions of what it means to be moral. Cataloging these could be the project of a life time, and I do not want to embark on such a quest today (or ever), but I do want to discuss some things that I believe must be essential to any relevant discussion of virtue theory. To start, I would like to share some thoughts on the Golden Mean theory postulated by Aristotle over 2,300 years ago. For starters, there is debate in academia these days about whether Aristotle even had any notion of "moral" virtue, that is, virtues that ought to be practiced simply because it is "right" to do so. Aristotle does have the notion of eudaimonia, or human flourishing/happiness, as the outgrowth of the practice of virtue, but it is unclear whether this is meant in a moral sense. It seems he may simply have been referring to the best way to live a contented life, and he does not make explicit mention that his Golden Mean theory was anything that bore moral weight. I am far from an expert on Aristotle, and I would like to table the discussion of whether or not his theory of virtue was intended morally or not and move to a critical analysis of how his theory stands up if it is to be taken as a definitive definition of virtue. Could the Golden Mean theory be a proper theory of what virtue is, or is it rather just a description of what virtue happens to look like in practice?
When interpreting Aristotle's Golden Mean theory of virtue, some attribute the phrase "everything in moderation" to him. It is clear that this is not Aristotle's position, as he makes reference to the fact that one does not ingest poison in moderation in his works. The Golden Mean does not entail that one must have every single thing in moderation, but rather that virtue is often the balancing of two opposing forces within oneself. For example, one instantiation of temperance requires that one both not eat/drink too much or too little, lest one be intemperate. Now, this is a perfectly sound empirical observation made by Aristotle, but is a Golden Mean really what virtue is? One might question what exactly it means to be above or below the mean when it comes to a given virtue. One thing is clear, Aristotle cannot (or, at least, should not) hold that the mean is a balance between either too much or too little of a certain virtue. It is ridiculous to say that someone either has too much or too little bravery. One is either brave in some respect, or one is not; the spectrum of the Golden Mean is measured by gradations of having a specific virtue. Surely, someone could be braver than another, but it can never be a negative thing to have bravery. When presented with a dangerous situation, one is either cowardly, brave, or foolhardy. Additionally, Aristotle himself admits that some virtues do not admit of deficiencies or surpluses. This seems to stick a fork in any ontological interpretation of the Golden Mean theory, as it cannot be of the essential structure of virtue to be the mean between two extremes.
When we pick up the pieces of what is left of the Golden Mean theory, it seems as if all that remains is a moderately astute observation made by Aristotle about what virtue entails. Surely, within man there are drives to be weak, self-indulgent, and impractical, however, I do not believe that these drives have a positive relation to virtue as much as they demonstrate the lack thereof. The Golden Mean theory is not worthless, as there are grains of truth in it, but it is not a proper definition of virtue. Virtue can only be the excellence of man at being man. By positing a theory of virtue, one must necessarily have in mind some sort of human nature or essence, as without some common nature there could not be something that is the perfection of all people. This leaves open nearly limitless possibilities for what true virtue could be, but it must entail some common nature. Furthermore, if one is to pursue some type of virtue theory in ethics, it must preclude any view of virtue as a means to an end. Virtue, being the perfection of man, is always the end of his life, and is never the means to any goal, such as happiness, pleasure, etc.; it is good in itself. I realize that I have not filled in much of the void left by my rejection of the Golden Mean theory as a true theory of virtue, but that would take many more words and is a task for a different day. For now, I think it suffices to say that virtue is neither a Golden Mean or a means to an end, and it certainly is not a meanie (yikes)!
Peace be with you,
William
P.S.- I think, as a part of my whole project (oh, how pretentious of me!) to make philosophy about real life, I am going to start posting artistic suggestions at the end of each new blog post from here on out. Let's call them "Concretizations of the Universal Form of Coolness"
CUFC- "Sabertooth Tiger" and "Toboggan" by Breathe Owl Breathe (songs), Downton Abbey (BBC show)
Monday, June 27, 2011
Saturday, June 25, 2011
TMTKI II- Capitalism and Value
One topic that I have had an increasing interest in over the past couple of years is the effect that our capitalist economy/government/society has on the American mind and its ability to make value judgments. It cannot be denied that the values people hold near-and-dear are shaped in part by the society they are in; even those who reject the values of their society are shaped by them because of their very standing against them. To come to a better understanding of the American mindset, of which I and most, if not all, of the people who will ever read this, are a part, I think it is crucial to elucidate the force that has potentially the strongest pull on its workings, capitalism. Before I delve too deeply (or, most likely, superficially) into this subject, I first want to add the disclaimer that I am not a socialist or a Marxist of any sort. I simply want to enter in to an honest critique of the workings of the capitalist framework of our society from a (hopefully) thoughtful and observant perspective. While I do believe Marx had some insightful points when it comes to the downfalls of capitalism, I also believe that some people do best to avoid system-building and stick to system-criticizing. With that said, I hope it is safe to move on to a critique of American capitalism.
Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations, describes capitalism as seeking to harness the "invisible hand" that is moving society at that time. By this it is meant the primary urge or desire being manifest by a sufficient number of people (aka "demand"). Now, there is a fine line between harnessing the invisible hand and creating the invisible hand, but ultimately I think capitalism attempts both quite successfully. The ideal capitalist is the one who sees what people want (or "should" want) and gives it to them (for only $19.99!). It is assumed that whatever people want is whatever is best for them and for the society/economy. I think this alone is a dangerous and questionable tenet, but the indictment does not end here. Moving to my point about value-perception, it is clear to me that there is a means by which capitalists measure the value of things within their framework: the almighty dollar. It can be seen here that capitalism is not just an economic system, but a philosophy of life and power that sees the one with the most dollars as the one who is top-dog. Certainly capitalism is not as oppressive as communism or fascism, but there is a degree of enslavement to the dollar that we all seem to be susceptible to. In the capitalist framework, it is easy to value everything in terms of dollar signs. The problem with this is that the amount of money something is worth is totally constructed by those who institute the framework in the first place. Sure, it is a good thing to save money, but who decides whether something should be worth more or less money? Ultimately, the entire system of capitalism has to come back to making money, which is the very reason why I question it. The measurement of value and power in terms of currency fails to grant inherent value to anything except for power. The pure capitalist cannot really say that anything is good except for having money, which is a means to power--power to do whatever you want. This is a point that led Max Scheler to hold that capitalism implies a value-relativism. He saw that the entire purpose of capitalism is to discover what people want and give it to them through the medium of currency. Supply and demand determines what does or does not have value. But, the very thing that determines this supply and demand is the fickle yearnings of the human soul. Therefore, the best capitalist is the one who either sees what people want, or can make people want. The whole point is to gain power through the power of exploitation and the medium of currency so that one can do whatever floats one's proverbial boat. Sounds a lot like Nietzsche to me. Now, you may be quaking in your boots with fury for such an indictment against good old America, but I think this criticism is valid and warrants the attention of those who care about values other than power and control. It is true that there are laws that govern our society, but do they stem purely from a moral perspective, or are they simply "what the people want," another way to satisfy their needs and obtain power? It may be a mixed bag, but one certainly does not have to look far to see potential places where this relativistic, power-thirsty worldview has ingrained itself in the national psyche. The pornography industry is booming in America, and our food is fraught with unnatural, harmful chemicals. The medical industry is truly an industry. Farm animals are treated as if they had no ability to feel pain and no intrinsic worth whatsoever. What is the justification for all of this? "It's what people want (or need)." "We can sure make a lot of money." I believe this is source of many of the problems in our society, and I think that a distancing from the values of pure capitalism is necessary in order to recover (or perhaps gain for the first time) moral integrity for our country.
Peace be with you,
William
Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations, describes capitalism as seeking to harness the "invisible hand" that is moving society at that time. By this it is meant the primary urge or desire being manifest by a sufficient number of people (aka "demand"). Now, there is a fine line between harnessing the invisible hand and creating the invisible hand, but ultimately I think capitalism attempts both quite successfully. The ideal capitalist is the one who sees what people want (or "should" want) and gives it to them (for only $19.99!). It is assumed that whatever people want is whatever is best for them and for the society/economy. I think this alone is a dangerous and questionable tenet, but the indictment does not end here. Moving to my point about value-perception, it is clear to me that there is a means by which capitalists measure the value of things within their framework: the almighty dollar. It can be seen here that capitalism is not just an economic system, but a philosophy of life and power that sees the one with the most dollars as the one who is top-dog. Certainly capitalism is not as oppressive as communism or fascism, but there is a degree of enslavement to the dollar that we all seem to be susceptible to. In the capitalist framework, it is easy to value everything in terms of dollar signs. The problem with this is that the amount of money something is worth is totally constructed by those who institute the framework in the first place. Sure, it is a good thing to save money, but who decides whether something should be worth more or less money? Ultimately, the entire system of capitalism has to come back to making money, which is the very reason why I question it. The measurement of value and power in terms of currency fails to grant inherent value to anything except for power. The pure capitalist cannot really say that anything is good except for having money, which is a means to power--power to do whatever you want. This is a point that led Max Scheler to hold that capitalism implies a value-relativism. He saw that the entire purpose of capitalism is to discover what people want and give it to them through the medium of currency. Supply and demand determines what does or does not have value. But, the very thing that determines this supply and demand is the fickle yearnings of the human soul. Therefore, the best capitalist is the one who either sees what people want, or can make people want. The whole point is to gain power through the power of exploitation and the medium of currency so that one can do whatever floats one's proverbial boat. Sounds a lot like Nietzsche to me. Now, you may be quaking in your boots with fury for such an indictment against good old America, but I think this criticism is valid and warrants the attention of those who care about values other than power and control. It is true that there are laws that govern our society, but do they stem purely from a moral perspective, or are they simply "what the people want," another way to satisfy their needs and obtain power? It may be a mixed bag, but one certainly does not have to look far to see potential places where this relativistic, power-thirsty worldview has ingrained itself in the national psyche. The pornography industry is booming in America, and our food is fraught with unnatural, harmful chemicals. The medical industry is truly an industry. Farm animals are treated as if they had no ability to feel pain and no intrinsic worth whatsoever. What is the justification for all of this? "It's what people want (or need)." "We can sure make a lot of money." I believe this is source of many of the problems in our society, and I think that a distancing from the values of pure capitalism is necessary in order to recover (or perhaps gain for the first time) moral integrity for our country.
Peace be with you,
William
Monday, June 20, 2011
A Blog about Personhood, Philosophy, etc.
Hello everyone and welcome to my blog, "The Mind That Knows Itself..."! The purpose of this blog is to wax philosophical about anything and everything that tickles my philosophical fancy. I will focus my attention on issues pertaining to the human condition, to personal experience, as without this grounding philosophy is truly a house built on sand. This does little to limit the overall scope of the blog, however, and over the course of its existence I hope to touch on many areas of life--not only philosophy proper but also more popular subjects such as sports and music. I hope you can bear with my amateurish attempts at depth and meaning; it is my desire that we all learn from this dialectical process!
As for the name of the blog, it is inspired by the song "The Mistress Witch from McClure (Or, the Mind That Knows Itself)" by Sufjan Stevens. This little ditty paints the picture of a child and his siblings walking in on on their father having an affair (quite a situation!), and the chaos that subsequently follows. Three lines heard strewn throughout song struck me as poignant as I was kicking around ideas for the blog, "The mind that knows itself has a mind to serve the other...A mind that knows itself is a mind that knows much more...A mind that knows itself has a mind to kill another." These existential realizations are born out of the concrete experience of betrayal, anger, and loss found in the almost-archetypal image of the cheating dad. The potencies of man, the animal who can know, range from total denial of self for others to some of the basest atrocities conceivable, namely cheating and murder. The horizon of rational animality spreads from the near-angelic to the sub-animal, as no non-rational being is capable of committing evil, properly speaking. This potent insight can be gleaned easily from the study of history, as the history of mankind appears to be the biggest mixed bag in the history of history. The dot-dot-dot after the title symbolizes that this mind-that-knows-itself is largely a work in progress, an unknown commodity, filled with many potencies, from exultant to wretched. Furthermore, echoing the sage Socratic utterance, the mind that knows itself is truly a mind that knows much more, as without the crucial pearl of self-knowledge, man truly wanders aimlessly throughout life purposelessly. How can man expect to live properly lest he know what, who he is? These are the questions I wish to investigate in this blog, and while it may truly sound audacious and naive to embark on such a quest, I hope that the journey will not be disappointing. One of the greatest philosophers, Socrates, points to the endpoint of this odyssey when he says, "I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing." I hope that, through an honest and candid dialectic, we may become so astute as to admit this with him.
Peace be with you,
William
As for the name of the blog, it is inspired by the song "The Mistress Witch from McClure (Or, the Mind That Knows Itself)" by Sufjan Stevens. This little ditty paints the picture of a child and his siblings walking in on on their father having an affair (quite a situation!), and the chaos that subsequently follows. Three lines heard strewn throughout song struck me as poignant as I was kicking around ideas for the blog, "The mind that knows itself has a mind to serve the other...A mind that knows itself is a mind that knows much more...A mind that knows itself has a mind to kill another." These existential realizations are born out of the concrete experience of betrayal, anger, and loss found in the almost-archetypal image of the cheating dad. The potencies of man, the animal who can know, range from total denial of self for others to some of the basest atrocities conceivable, namely cheating and murder. The horizon of rational animality spreads from the near-angelic to the sub-animal, as no non-rational being is capable of committing evil, properly speaking. This potent insight can be gleaned easily from the study of history, as the history of mankind appears to be the biggest mixed bag in the history of history. The dot-dot-dot after the title symbolizes that this mind-that-knows-itself is largely a work in progress, an unknown commodity, filled with many potencies, from exultant to wretched. Furthermore, echoing the sage Socratic utterance, the mind that knows itself is truly a mind that knows much more, as without the crucial pearl of self-knowledge, man truly wanders aimlessly throughout life purposelessly. How can man expect to live properly lest he know what, who he is? These are the questions I wish to investigate in this blog, and while it may truly sound audacious and naive to embark on such a quest, I hope that the journey will not be disappointing. One of the greatest philosophers, Socrates, points to the endpoint of this odyssey when he says, "I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing." I hope that, through an honest and candid dialectic, we may become so astute as to admit this with him.
Peace be with you,
William
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)