Socratic questioning session #1

Remove all ads!

(The reason I'm doing this is because I have to act out Socrates in a play, and his line of questiong usually forces one to contradict themselves, thats why I'm doing this.)

Then how come there is a "set" of virtues we are all told to live by, ie. patience?

 

That question assumes that others know more than us. By asking about those who tell us what to do you are ignoring the fact that they are also human and therefore subject to their own beliefs. I said before that virtue is a human concept and the assumption should be that they have their own ideas about what virtue is.

 

(True knowledge lies in the fact that you know nothing) But many say that virtues are commendable qualities, hypothetically, if one belives in corruption, greediness, etc. will you still regard them as THEIR virtues?

 

Maybe, that depends on your moral..

 

true knowledge lies in knowing what you do not know, not necessarily that you know nothing.

 

You can't have corruption as a virtue, any more than you could have weakness, sickness, ugliness, poverty, or such. They might be useful means to a desirable end (corruption leading to sensual pleasure, poverty leading to spiritual humility, etc.), but they aren't virtues.

Powerlessness tends to corrupt; absolute powerlessness corrupts absolutely.

 

Why can't one have those as a virtue?

 

You can't have weakness as a virtue because weakness is a shortfall. Virtue is a standard, not a falling short of a standard. Ugliness falls short of beauty, sickness fall short of health, poverty falls short of wealth, etc. These inadequacies might be useful in the short-term but they aren't virtuous, in any sense.

For example, Nietzsche claimed that "whatever does not kill me makes me stronger". But it is the resultant strength that Nietzsche idolizes, not the trials that served as incidental means to make him stronger.

So for a Machiavellian, corruption might be a useful means to become more ruthlessly virtuous - but the corruption itself is an unfortunate device, not a virtue itself.

 

And who laid these standards?

Grey Magistrate, check my quote

 

Ha ha! You're right, Morgoth. That's the problem with virtue - it's always telling you what to do, and then when you challenge it with "Why?", it falls back on "Because!".

But it's not quite that simple, because theory has to be lived out in real life.

So OK, for the sake of argument, I guess someone could claim that corruption, sickness, and poverty are virtues. There's no way to fundamentally disprove it theoretically. But...you could also, theoretically, believe that you can walk through walls, fly in the air, survive jumping off cliffs, drive through red lights, etc. It may be theoretically possible to BELIEVE such, but it's empirically impossible to LIVE such.

So if you picked corruption as your virtue, then you'd be stuck trying to figure out just what you're corrupting, and why that corruption is more important than the thing that you're corrupting, and how to manage a day-to-day routine that glorified corruption. Corruption is a fine seasoning, maybe, but it makes for a lousy life program.

So it's not exactly true to say that it's just "you" that picks what is virtuous and what isn't. If you pick a seriously wrong answer, life smacks you. Hard.

For good or ill, the classical, Christian, and Machiavellian virtue-systems seem (emphasis on "seem"!) to be internally consistent (within themselves) and more or less compatible with day-to-day life.

 

Because? Because you then valuate the fall as a lesson, and then create a new virtue.
One for yourself, one which will help you get through the day. And if it doesn't you create a new one!

What if you throw a stone upwards and then stand under it 'knowing' it will land somewhere else.
Who did then threw the stone upwards if the stone hits you on the head? Life?

 

(Well if you think about it, I think the "standard" virtues are at times just suger coated weakneses, ie. Ambitious = Greediness
Patience = Moronically slow Helpful = Spineless)

But whou comes up with the "standard" any way?

 

Of course, even 'moral' has an 'immoral' foundation..

 

Again, who comes up with the "standard" morals/virtues anyway?

 

Scientific research has showed us that monkeys also have a feeling of fair play. Link

So you might say that moral (as being an extension of the concept 'fair', that's why the concept 'moral' and 'virtue' appeals to many people) is the result of a mental evolution.

 

So you're saying that to be virtuos is to be fair with others, to allow them to have a go and to divide resources equally. I think the monkeys do that because it helps them work in teams and is therefore a purely evolutionary trait, scientists change their minds every few years anyway, like the time they found out that ants are in fact quite competitive even in the same hive. It's still a purely human trait, even if we assign it to others.

 

So what you are saying is that virtue is within all humans from when they are born to when they die, because of evelution?

 

Virtue is what 'you' create yourself, the state of thoughts or action (or non-action) you find most appealing to your moral.

But because your moral and your thoughts are molded by your environment, aka the society you live in, creates virtue and moral.

So, if we follow that line of thinking, moral and virtue are the product of a human herd instinct (society is a herd), and a product of evolution, saying that moral is a purely human trait is the same like saying that thinking and evaluating are pure human traits.

What if(yes, sometimes the 'if' tactic is the best way to look at things in a new way) thinking evolved out of evaluating (is it the same even?)

Of course, because we will always find new facts and if it doesnt fit in the theory we change our way of looking at things(change the facts), or we change the theory.

 

If so...then why do people within the "herd" have different values than each other?

 

What do you mean with different values?

Did you, by change discovered a muslim in a Christian 'society'?

Or did you found a negro amongst the nazi's?

[ September 24, 2003, 21:17: Message edited by: Morgoth ]