Role Played by Phronesis in Aristotles Political Theory - Coursework Example

Role Played by Phronesis in Aristotle’s Political Theory College: In the view point of Aristotle and his theories, there are principally two types of intellectual virtues by which human beings live by. These two intellectual virtues Aristotle keeps on talking of include wisdom and phronesis. Aristotle argues out that while wisdom denotes a virtue that we are in a position to gain and increase the whole time of our lives through both time and experience, phronesis cannot be so acquired through books or education; it is a virtue that is more learnt and built from the tenets of social interaction as well as real life experiences. Wisdom leans more to scientific knowledge since it is a form of knowledge that would ordinarily be expected of an intellect (Yack 1991, p.15). On the contrary, phronesis is a wisdom that an individual with no schooling is capable of be proficient in since it all refers to the ability of one being able to come up with sound judgments and decisions throughout his or her life. So as to better understand phronesis, it is advisable for one to think of it as being the more rational facet of our personalities and thoughts. As Aristotle puts across, phronesis it concerned with the affairs of human kind; and as thus denotes the manner in which people deal with one another and with themselves in the day today life situations. However, it is worth noting that phronesis is not all about being in a position to come up with decisions for an individual’s self-interest, rather is also entails being able to rest on the best of all decisions for mankind. It actually encompasses the ability to think and act towards that which will best benefit one’s self as well as man (Wall 2003, p.317). Factoring in the above mentioned therefore, it becomes common sensual to understand phronesis as being that which will best fit mankind in totality, and as thus it becomes a prerequisite for one to pay close attention to the principal part of political science. This is simply so because political science denotes the study of doing that which is beneficial to mankind to its maximum potential. Aristotle introduces phronesis (practical wisdom) as a way of talking of practical reasoning as an all-encompassing critical enterprise that brings together acting, being and desiring. As thus, this aspect of phronesis is imperative since it unconditionally makes out that who we are has a close relationship with what we do and how we plan and on the other hand what we do thus establishing really who we are (Schwarty & Sharpe 2010, p.23). The holism that phronesis presents avails the suggestion of getting to understand who a good person is or coming to the realization of flourishing polity; all of which call for integrative perspective of the whole person, body or polity that thereafter presents the different though interrelated and interdependent aspects. Markedly, phronesis avails this integrative reasoning-being-desiring function. More critically, the perception of building up a decisive orientation is not merely coming to the knowledge of what is right or suitable in the situations, rather having the desire to do that which is right or apposite (Wall 2003, p.318). In his deliberations of phronesis and virtues of character, Aristotle positions us on a course of thinking that welcomes the relation of the thinking-desiring-being and performing into sharp focus. What practical wisdom involves is something with a close relationship with that which is to be a holistic human being; in simple terms, phronesis entails more than mere thinking or even being rational beings. It encompasses feeling, acting and making expressions as embodied beings (Schwarty & Sharpe 2010, p.27). Phronesis is neither, at its least, a technical skill that individuals can learn as is the case with typing or carpentry nor is it all that concerns determining conventional outcomes or weighing and resultantly judging options that an individual is under obligation to execute. According to Aristotle, in the event that we display a good and/or constant behavior, it is therefore likely that we have a clue of what we are supposed to do (Yack 1991, p.55). From a stringent Aristotelian perspective, and in regard to political theory, phronesis is the intellectual virtue that actively plays the role of assisting us make the right choice of means through which we may be able to come to the realization of and end that is already known to us. Nevertheless, there are a number of Aristotelian’s practical reasoning elements that work hand in hand phronesis and which are in the offing contemplating goods and/or ends. Although these other elements are evident in his (Aristotle’s) ethics, they may also be equally central on the realization of the ethical via the rhetorical as well as in the political spheres. On these grounds therefore, there is a need to make attempts to rethink phronesis in a broader practical reasoning context as Aristotle argues. It is through this rethinking that will pave way for phronesis to be more explicitly positioned within the provisions of Aristotelian ideas on politics and rhetoric (Schwarty & Sharpe 2010, p.36). In the theory of politics, phronesis does describe the space of thinking-acting-desiring whereby insight is not only formed, but also nurtured with progression in time through each and every tangible experience. According to Aristotle, phronesis denotes the intellectual virtue that aids humans to- in a reflexive way- secure the goodness of their character by enjoining them to take actions that ad infinitum bring about and perfect the latter (Wall 2003, p.319). The meaning of this is that humans could hardly come to the realization of virtues of character, the likes temperance, courage, justice or friendship in the event that phronesis is deficient. When it comes to character, there is nothing outdated about it; it is actually what we are as well as whether we are accountable not only for ourselves but also to others. It is the outstanding and authentic blending of thinking, being acting and desiring in the development of character and the endorsement of essential insight, marking phronesis to be qualified for a closer examination (Wall 2003, p.22). Aristotle argues out that in politics, it is actually impossible to do good (in the inclusive sense of the word) in the absence of practical wisdom- phronesis or even to be a man of practical wisdom deficient of virtue or moral excellence. As rational beings, it is almost unachievable for us to be virtuous by education or indoctrination alone; there is a need for us to be deliberators of good morals too. It is on these bases therefore that phronesis is not poiesis; neither does it produce anything new. On the contrary, what phronesis does is the perception of the good that has already been determined by personal habit and human potentiality, after which it later deliberates on the same or about the way forward to reaching it. It more elaborate terms, phronesis comprehends and goes after happiness or eudaimonia (the good), which has already been sown in the fabric of the nature of humans (Schwarty & Sharpe 2010, p.58). Being the practical knowledge which is typical to the politician, phronesis denotes the very first knowledge of an individual who is in a position of perceiving and/or pursuing his or her own objectives but which entails just that which it is. As thus, that national who makes a choice of being led by a politician does so based on the belief that he or she has just as the latter is well positioned to pursue his or her personal gain, and as thus will be able to go for the gain of the city in its entirety. However, the practical knowledge hardly distinguishes itself in simple terms since it can go after a gain. In this gain of the good therefore, there is a need for understanding since it has to be a knowledge of itself, a knowledge of its own good and one that is capable of producing for purposes of both knowing and producing the same (Wall 2003, p.25). According to Aristotle, phronesis in political theory does advocate for careful and reasoned deliberation, informed by experiences in life. This deliberation is so undertaken prior acting on anything. As so, it in on this basis that it can be argued out that any good deliberation which is not followed by apt action hardly amount to phronesis (Yack 1991, p.37). As a matter of fact, although practical knowledge entails knowledge, it is more than knowledge. While skills and knowledge are in the offing of being misused and as thus give birth to results which besides being poor are morally unsatisfactory, phronesis cannot. Practical wisdom (phronesis) is an enduring process of personal development and has been integrated into psyche via the process of inquiry, deliberation and correct course of actions in the day today lived experience (Schwarty & Sharpe 2010, p.62). Aristotelian phronesis is therefore aimed at presenting an account of how the good ought to live as well as how the society ought to be structured so as to make such a live possible. In his works, Aristotle stresses that good life is that life which has been lived within the community and the individual is part and parcel thereof. The observations of this philosopher (Aristotle) on the reasons of action are deliberately of a broad-spectrum to put more emphasis on the fundamental assumptions of ethics. More often than not, we find ourselves thinking through such problems as how the bills we incur can be offset, but hardly do we ask the deeper questions such as what one ought to be doing with his or her life (Wall 2003, p.27). In availing an answer to some of his questions, Aristotle argues out that politics is the top-most level of practical science, since it is all about action and the manner in which the community ought to be organized so as to realize the best of the results. Aristotle’s politics are not only a continuation, but also an elaboration of his works of ethics. From these quarters therefore, both politics and ethics are complementary in the sense that they are concerned with that which is termed to be considerably paramount to each one of us as a human being. While ethics views the question from a perspective of an individual, politics views the same in a community’s viewpoint (Wall 2003, p.28). Based on the aspect of phronesis, being good is an uninterrupted practice as opposed to an occasional one and Aristotle makes good use of the equivalence that one swallow scarcely makes a summer in an effort to hearten humankind into repeated practice of good actions especially if one indulges in the political arena. The principal objective is doing the right thing for its sake and acting rightly is the practical turn of phrase of ethics which Aristotle considers to be the most imperative of the sciences, including political science, to the extent that he does not factor in the alternative of being a viable proposition (Yack 1991, p.76). The ultimate human good is happiness (eudaimonia) and this calls for virtues of thought and character, yet the main objective is not happiness. Aristotle contends that happiness is the end result of taking pride in being excellent in each and every thing one does. That which humans wish for has a close relationship with a particular purpose or end and the choices humans come up with greatly contribute towards the end. In the event that an individual wishes to be healthy, he or she chooses and lives a healthy lifestyle. Besides, the choices we make and embark on relate to that which in within the boundaries of our power to execute the same. Whether we do the right or the wrong thing is totally another matter of concern. What ought to be noted is that virtue is a principal component of human flourishing and ought to be factored in (Schwarty & Sharpe 2010, p.65). According to Aristotle, phronesis is a key to good life- of which the latter is a moral life of virtue. Each and every art enquiry, choice and action is perceived to be targeted to some good. As thus, phronesis is vital in helping us understand hexis (a habitual disposition), which avails the suggestion that humankind possesses a natural capacity o develop disposition by training. Undeniably, both virtue and skill require deliberation and inquiry. On the contrary, phronesis solely entails the correct use of capacities towards ethical action. Here, Aristotle remains very specific in the sense that on the issue of virtues, he contends that solely looking at the product is not satisfactory (Wall 2003, p.29). To him, the right thing done based on the wrong reason rarely counts as virtuous action. His intentions in his general rules and accounts of virtue are not for the same to be taken as rules. His argument over the same being, that both perception and experience equally play a central part in virtue. Undeniably, experience remains to be an imperative requirement to reasonable deliberation since balanced emotional insight remains to be a crucial element of good moral decision making, involving more than an emotional response to situations. Aristotle’s argument is that we, as human beings, are capable of training ourselves in good moral decision making (Wall 2003, p.30). Generally therefore, the choice we opt for express the nature of each and every one of us. If at all our intent is building and strengthening our character, this necessitates us to make a choice in the line that will be favorable to doing well. Aristotle’s suggestion is that the reason as to why we do wrong is because of pleasure and our propensity to avoid doing good things on account of pain. Since choice are generally limited to that which is within our power, virtue is equally a choice within our power and as thus phronesis ought to be our daily practice if we are to act rightfully (Schwarty & Sharpe 2010, p.77). References Schwarty, B & Sharpe, K 2010, Practical Wisdom: The Right Way to do the Right Thing, Riverhead Books, New York. Wall, J 2003,’Phronesis, Poetics and Moral Creativity’, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 6: 317-341. Yack, B 1991, ‘A Reinterpretation of Aristotles Political Teleology, History of Political Thought, 12. Read More