I still don't know what you mean. Let us leave aside classic concepts of virtue such as Aristotle's "Golden Mean". I believe you are narrowing the discussion down to certain enumerated virtues commonly agreed on through many cultures. I also believe you recognize that there is substantial disagreement throughout history and through disciplines such as philosophy and theology as to what qualities constitute a virtue. (And if I am mistaken in these beliefs about what you are getting at then please correct my notions. I have not come to these conclusions tabula rasa but rather from faithfully reading and gathering feedback from your previous posts).
We no longer use the Aristotelian definition of virtue which prevailed for many centuries. And various philosophical and religious paradigms are in profound and substantial disagreement as to what one ought to consider as virtuous conduct. Really, the idea of virtue when refined to fundamentals is simply about right thought and right action--these two being "good", as it were. But right thought and right action are (of course, and obviously) SUBJECTIVE AND RELATIVE.
So after that aside let me return to my first paragraph where I am attempting to provide a framework for understanding the point you are attempting to make. If I am not mistaken, you are suggesting that in spite of the subjectivity involved in determining right thought and right action, and in spite of the observed fact that these social and individual markers of "virtue" are relative to time, culture, prevailing theologies, governments, current philosophical underpinnings, etc.--you still (it would seem) believe that behind (or perhaps floating in "ether") these myriad notions of right conduct there exists an "ideal form" (or "forms").
Of course, I still don't know what you mean by "ideal form"? Do you mean there is an "ideal" diagram of (for instance) JUSTICE that is written down somewhere--or floats somewhere, such as the "ether"? And if so, then where can I find it, how do you know about it, and what is it? Because even though I don't know what you are talking about (yet), it would seem like a wonderful thing for everyone on earth to know what justice was (so that we would all know who to kill in wars, for instance). For example, individuals could turn their weapons against their own comrades if need be, knowing that (having somehow accessed an "ideal form" {or is it "the" "ideal form"} of justice), they can consequently act in unison (and virtuously) with others who have "the answer"??
Do you believe that "justice:" means the same to a Muslim as to a Christian. Both of these religious bodies claim to access "Absolute Truth" which (correct me if I am wrong) is analogous to your "ideal form"?? So they either have the same idea of the "ideal form" of justice or they have a different idea. And if their ideals are different...then the ideal "ideal" must lie beyond their knowledge (perhaps in the "ether"?) And where does THEIR disagreement fit in with what YOU know to be THE ideal form of justice?
BTW, this is a good time for me to correct previous assertions you have made that all people know the ideal forms of virtue. I DO NOT KNOW THESE IDEAL FORMS. I am still trying to grasp what you are talking about when you refer to "ideal forms".
Perhaps you can help me? What is an "ideal form"? Is it only limited to such virtues as justice or honesty or mercy or generosity or frugality? Is it choosing mercy over justice or justice over mercy? Almost all virtue theorists agree that mercy and justice are separate and distinct virtues, eh?? So does the "ideal form" of mercy trump justice? Does ideal justice submit to mercy? Does PRUDENCE trump BRAVERY? Or does ideal prudence find a place in the back seat?
Does a rabbit have an ideal form also (and do all of humanity KNOW this, too)? Are there "ideal forms" outside of virtues? Perhaps "vices"? Outside of these two categories? Please help me out here. I would truly like to understand what you are talking about, Less, because to tell you the truth it feels like you are just pulling premises out of thin air. Unless you can define your terms or explain your premises I will be unable to follow you. The big problem seems to be your introduction of "ideal forms". I have talked to several people and although they can all imagine something like (say) a perfect circle as being a linguistic or mental image--none of them have been able to grasp what you mean by a "perfect form" of a virtue. A virtue is simply an action towards a principle which is considered right action at the time and place and relative to the interpreter, so it is (to this point) impossible for us to do justice to your opinion. If we knew to what entities you restrict your ideas of "ideal forms" it would help us to catch up to you, I am sure. |
