|Aristotle Returns (sort of)
||[Jul. 7th, 2006|12:02 pm]
Quid Est Veritas?
Hopefully the mention of Aristotle won't scare you all away...I know with what fond memories we look back upon the sessions of bashing our brains against the fortress of Ariwaddlemeister, but fear not: all brain bashing is now purely voluntary.
My question is related to my last essay, in which I argued that Aristotle relied too much on making men good by habit. But among the comments I recieved in response, a question was brought up: is that reliance really an evil (I had assumed that it was)?. So my question is this: is the more virtuous man he who has been habituated to doing good until the good becomes natural, or he who has been forced to reason through and see why good is good, and then exercises his willpower upon that basis and from there does good? A question relating to that is: if a man does do good from habit, is that a bad thing (given that habit does not involve thought) if he has habituated himself through his own reason and willpower?
To start off (ignoring the last question), I'll assert that the second mode is better. I think that it corresponds more accurately with human nature (man being a rational animal), whereas the first is a more animalistic way of making a good product by (unintellectual) repetition.
1) This may not be the exact question that was raised in the essay, but it's something I've been thinking about. So we really don't need to bring Aristotle into it at all (unless y'all are burning to...)
2) I know, there won't be much discussion until Emma at least (b/c I know she's interested in this topic) is a member...
3) Fie upon whatever cruel Fate dictated that MD be off in the rainforests when we need her here; I need someone to staunchly stick up for the other side (which she probably would) so I (and we) can better work through this...she had better check up and give her thoughts once she gets back from Brazil.
Oh, and 4): I know this is convoluted. But any answer is great. ^_^