Aristotle and Socrates' Minds on Virtue: Western Philosophy - Essay Example

Running Head: Difference between Aristotle and Socrates on Virtue Difference between Aristotle and Socrates on Virtue Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Name Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Course Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Lecture Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 30th March, 2012. Among the greatest thinkers of all times is philosophers Aristotle and Socrates. Aristotle was born by a doctor and attended school in Athens and was taught by another philosopher called Plato, after which he taught at the same school after the death of Plato. During his times, Aristotle showed deep understanding in many doctrines and he is the founder of many disciplines. He showed understanding in fields like mathematics, biology, astronomy, theory, time, literature, and nature of happiness among other disciplines (Bantas, 2011). Though Aristotle did not write and publish his work but wrote and deposited his work to library for consultation, most of his writing in notes are been read to understand his work and contribution in many accounts to present days. His works on morals and virtues are contained in scripts called ‘Nicomachean Ethics’. In these works, his view on what is virtuous is discussed. Aristotle claims that it is not possible for a man to be good to the fullest without the practical wisdom or be a person of practical wisdom without morals or virtue. He continuous to explain what ‘good’ really is, and which deeds are called virtuous. According to Aristotle, virtue and practical wisdom go together in the sense that if one is not there, the other too does not exist. The claim evoked another philosophy called the unity of virtues thesis which states that if a person has the ability to possess on virtue, then he possesses them all. Nevertheless, the theory has some doubts since it is implausible in the sense that one person is capable of showing two distinct virtue at the same time. In addition to Aristotle’s argument, no virtue can be founded on ignorance, since the virtues are as a result of choice. In the light of this, the possessor of the virtue acts in good faith and the virtue is the collect action. Again, for the deeds to be said that they are virtuous, the beholder must be fully aware of the possible outcomes or circumstances. With that, one is bounded not to act with ignorance. Therefore, praise for virtue can only be given to a person who acts with full knowledge of the action and the possible consequences. Socrates on the other hand, was a philosopher born by a sculptor and followed the same profession. Later, he joined army but thereafter he demonstrated his proficiency in ethics and morality. Unlike Aristotle, Socrates was not much interested with the study of the natural world and he believed that there was nothing to learn from studying the natural world. He therefore spent most of his time thinking about the nature of human. In his work on ethics i.e. morals and virtue, he developed a concept which is different from that developed by Aristotle (Bantas, 2011). According to Socrates tenet, moral virtues are contained in the conscious mind of the actor in such a way that; he has the knowledge of the act and that one who is not virtuous acts out of ignorance (Vlastos, 1991). He clarified that every virtue in a person acts should come with virtuous actions which are good and recurring. Socrates believed that for a person to life happily, he must possess the virtue. He explained what the virtue is and to which extent is a deed described to be virtuous. According to Socrates, the possessor of the virtue should be in a position to explain and defend through logical argument the consequences by which he lived failure to which the actions will be unjustified. (Lavine, 1985) In addition, one should know what state of mind he is operating on whether conscious or subconscious. During his interaction with different people in public places, Socrates would ask them to define courage, virtuous deed, self-control and moderation. This kind of definition is more real and practical than nominal kind of definitions as it is in dictionaries. It is clear from the two philosophies put forward by Socrates and Aristotle that there exists a contradiction in describing an action as virtuous or vice. From Aristotle’s point of view, an action is virtuous if and only if the possessor of the virtue has the ability to forecast the possible outcomes of the deed. If say, the possessor is not in a position to explain then the action or the deed cannot be described as virtues. From this perspective, it is very difficult to term an action as virtuous since the intended outcome lies in the mind of the actor. Furthermore, the aims and the objectives of the deed are with the possessor. For example, if I switch the light to light it up, the action any be described as; flipping the switch, lift my hand up or lighting the room. All of the mentioned described actions are true but only one is virtuous. The action of lighting the room a virtue because, even before I lifted my hand to flip the switch the notion of the outcome was in my mind. Again, it is possible to defend my action with the fact that one cannot work in a dark room. Again, on the claim that virtue comes with knowledge; according to morality it is far-fetched. Going with the fact that even before the action, the possessor had the knowledge of the deed in the sense that human being is created in a way that they must make judgment. It is clear from this that, if one did not think there is such a thing as good judgments then it is not better or worse than other. On the side of Socrates, the virtue should be accompanied by a logical argument to defend the deed (Crisp, 1997). This way, the virtue can only be called virtuous, again if and only if the deed is justified. Without the logical justification then the action cannot be termed as virtuous. Many actors may not be in a position to provide a critical argument behind their deeds. But, in the real sense the deed was good to be termed as virtuous. Consequently, many actions will be termed as vice just because the actor did not provide an argument. The vaguest point is the Aristotle’s theory of unity of virtue. It is possible for an actor of possess to distinct trait, in the sense that one actor can frown and smile at the same time. From the theory, this fact is not true because it dictates that the actor should possess all the virtues if he possesses one. The argument would not be complete without looking what philosopher had to say about the virtue. Plato, one among the list of Socrates and Aristotle of great philosophers viewed virtue as the highest good of an individual, society or the nation in the light of justice. If the action is just (then and only then) it is termed a virtue. The three tenets now become more confusing because no two of them have the same meaning. When one emphasizes on virtue as the just action, the other emphasizes on virtue as the logical argument behind the virtue and the last one explains the nature of virtue as the unity. In conclusion, since, most of the human deeds are characterized by judgments before and after the action therefore in the light of the tenets, it is not clear on which life one should go for. That is, to kill a person and then offer a logical justification behind the killing (Crisp, 1997). On the same note, once a person shows virtuous trait he cannot possess the vice trait, and finally if the action is not just then it is not a virtue. These view are contradictory and they need to be reviewed to get the exert meaning of them as the philosopher’s intended. References Bantas, H. (2011) Understanding Aristotle: The Virtues (Understanding Western Philosophy). UK: Reluctant Geek Crisp, R. (1997) Virtue Ethics (Oxford Readings in Philosophy) .USA: Oxford University Press. Lavine, T. (1985) .From Socrates to Sartre: The Philosophic Quest. UK: Bantam Vlastos, G. (1991) .Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosophe.UK: Cornell University Press. Read More