"the ideal forms of virtue persist across time and circumstance, and are known by individuals and recognized by humanity at large."
>>>What do you mean? I can't make anything out of that sentence. I asked my wife (another individual and member of humanity) and she doesn't understand what you are talking about either.<<<
I mean, when you separate the ideal form from the actions, or specific examples of conduct, they are recognizable as identacle by all of humanity, by individuals and by the whole. There is a translation of virtue into actions and my position is that it is not typically accomplished in the ideal. The actions themselves are are specific examples of the human incompleteness we agreed to previously. For purposes of this discussion, I've been focusing on the ideal form not actions.
Confucious or Lao-Tsu in China and Ghandi in India were not reflecting Western culture when they spoke of virtue, nor do sages from indigenous peoples. Yet when someone outside one of those cultures is able to see how they define virtue, we recognise it and find agreement, which probably accounts, at least in part, for the phenomenon known as 'going native,' where people from one culture adopt another as their own. A Catholic would not disagree with the ten virtues codified in Hindu, although they'd probably argue they were enumerated incorrectly. Find an ancient record which codifies goodness and you are likely to find universal agreement with the idea. |
