Does Virtue = Wisdom ?
In his Socratic dialogues, (or at the very least those that I know enough about to say this), Plato presents an interesting proposition about virtue: Virtue is just another name for wisdom. So if you are wise, you are virtuous, and vice versa.
An objection to this is that even though some virtues may be reducible to wisdom, there is at least one virtue that is completely independent from wisdom, the most prominent example one could advance being courage. How can one reduce the sheer willpower behind the virtue of courage to a simple matter of knowing and not knowing, you may ask ?
To defend Plato's view from the example of courage, one might say that willpower is not in our control. And if it's not in our control, then there is no such thing as a virtue involving having willpower. So the virtue of courage is not really about willpower, perhaps it is more about being wise enough to exploit whatever willpower we have to achieve one's goals.
But what do you think ? Is virtue really just equal to wisdom, or is there a plurality of virtues, each independent from the other(s) ? Or are all the virtues reducible to something that is not equal to wisdom ?
An objection to this is that even though some virtues may be reducible to wisdom, there is at least one virtue that is completely independent from wisdom, the most prominent example one could advance being courage. How can one reduce the sheer willpower behind the virtue of courage to a simple matter of knowing and not knowing, you may ask ?
To defend Plato's view from the example of courage, one might say that willpower is not in our control. And if it's not in our control, then there is no such thing as a virtue involving having willpower. So the virtue of courage is not really about willpower, perhaps it is more about being wise enough to exploit whatever willpower we have to achieve one's goals.
But what do you think ? Is virtue really just equal to wisdom, or is there a plurality of virtues, each independent from the other(s) ? Or are all the virtues reducible to something that is not equal to wisdom ?
Comments (116)
Someone who lacks courage has not realized or actualized her potential but this does not mean that courage is the same as human excellence or virtue. In fact, an excess of courage can lead to rashness or even ruthlessness.
I think Aristotle says courage is what makes the other virtues enacted. Knowing the mean is not the same as acting on it.
It seems to me that wisdom incorporates moral claims. That is, a wise person is someone who knows what it is morally good to know.
As such a virtuous person will be wise and a wise person will be virtuous, or at least you can't be to some extent wise without being to some extent virtuous.
But it is fallacious to infer from this that wisdom 'is' virtue. If something occupies space then it will have a shape. But it does not follow that space 'is' shape. Likewise from the fact that being wise involves being virtuous to some degree, does not establish that the two are the same. Indeed, we can explain why the two are found together: to be wise is to know what it is morally good to know.
Unless you are a mean sort of fella.
There were three guys from Sparta
Each had a mean sort of phalla.
They cleaned up the town
Their leader went down
In history books as Fella.
Very simple answer to this. Wisdom is the greatest of the four platonic virtues. It assumes the realization of the three other virtues. Soto have wisdom is to possess all the other virtues. Virtue is simply a category that unfolds onto itself.
silly
Agreed.
Do you mean the opposite route to the same destination or one that leads to the opposite or a different destination?
I think it important to keep in mind Socrates "human wisdom", which is to say, his ignorance. The question arises as to the possibility of humans attaining "divine wisdom", that is, wisdom that goes beyond knowledge of our ignorance. Put differently, the question is whether the full realization of human nature is possible. It may be that it is something to which we aspire but never realize. Human wisdom would then entail the ability to discern what is best in the absence of knowledge of what is best. Human wisdom, then, requires moderation, an acknowledgement of our fallibility.
No, they are interrelated, or mutually reinforcing.
Adaptive habits.
NB: Wisdom is, I suspect, mastery over (any or some, many or all) maladaptive habits of judgment and conduct. Thus, we fools only seek ("love") wisdom but are never wise ourselves. :fire:
1. Sophia/Prudentia
2. Fortitudo
3. Iustitia
4. Temperantia
Are these 4 virtues internally consistent?
:fire:
At the start, Plato says something that will sound familiar: that he does not know what virtue is, or more interestingly, that he can't remember the knowledge (from Gorgias). But he believes Meno can speak as an expert (as if any of us can), even though "I [Plato] have never yet met anyone else who did know." And then he continues "Speak and do not begrudge us, so that I may have spoken a most unfortunate untruth when I said that I had never met anyone who knew, if you and Gorgias are shown to know." (71d)
In saying that they must be "shown" to know, Plato reveals that he already has requirements for what he will accept before beginning his questions; spoiler: virtue will not meet them. As an example, Meno says each thing has its own virtue, but Plato wants virtue to be singular, universal to any particulars (72), as, he claims, "all human beings are good in the same way" (73c). It will turn out that Plato never finds this singular quality, getting sidetracked on what virtue would need to consist of to be such a thing; so the Meno is more an epistemological dictum than an investigation of ethical action.
The threshold is that virtue must be able to be taught--rather than something that could be found (say, within oneself, in action)--thus to be a kind of knowledge (in the sense of information), outside of which there is "nothing good" (87d). (Wittgenstein comes to the same conclusion in the Tractatus, because he is also projecting beforehand the criteria of certainty, universality, etc., and rejecting anything that does not meet those requirements.)
This is the point, at 88d-89, at which Plato comes to the conclusion that virtue must be a kind of wisdom as opposed to ignorance, though not of knowledge, but as a lack of "discipline" that is "reckless", "foolish" (id.), as if unconsidered, without first understanding. These qualities could be considered the realization (lessons) of ordinary ethical guidelines, however, Plato rejects that virtue is teachable because he assumes, as, at 97, that it must have "correctness" or "right"; something that can be "tied down" which will "remain" and "guide" us. This desire for predictability and consistency comes from a need for the consequences of our actions to be known in advance; that, with knowledge, we could act and always be judged correct or right. Without meeting those requirements we are "soothsayers" or "prophets", simply guessing.
Of note though, he says "they have no knowledge of what they are saying", as if what allowed for virtue was a kind of self-awareness (through our language, of our culture's judgment of what is said), that the "knowledge" he seeks is not something new or novel, but a "recollection" (81d). He goes on to stun, or "numb", someone who volunteers their answers by bringing them to be at a "loss" (84b)(in this case, to do mathematics, something that must be certain, which is another forced criteria of virtue for Plato). Plato calls our unexamined first impressions "opinions" (85d), but the crux is not that opinion (as in, belief) is opposed to knowledge (as, justified certainty), but that the loss or grief that we come to requires us to look for something we do not seem to have (84c), but something we come to as if we are remembering what we already know (as if from another life (81b)). Wittgenstein will do this by investigating the implications of the practices of our ordinary (though unexamined) lives through our language for them, making their structure and criteria explicit; in a sense known, though as: aware, realized.
Also, Plato says that those who are statesmen--leaders of themselves as it were--cannot make another a statesman; as if our virtue was ours alone to make, that we create ourselves, as if virtuous is something we become, exhibit. Plato's requirements for knowledge, however, force the matter into either knowledge or shadow, insisting that we find the nature of virtue but leaving the matter for us to answer (perhaps as if for ourselves--with our selves--say, when we are at a loss).
Plato sets up what is at issue in Socrates' opening statement. He attributes the Thessalians' reputation for wisdom to their love of the sophist Gorgias because of his wisdom, and his ability to give "a bold and grand answer to any question you may be asked, as experts are likely to do." Socrates will not provide such an answer to the question of whether virtue can be taught. He claims that not only he, but neither Gorias nor anyone else knows what virtue is. The dialogue Gorgias raises doubts as to his wisdom and virtue. He is a skilled rhetorician who can give bold and grand answers, although the truth of those answers is something else.
But it is not Gorgias but Meno himself we must look at. Xenophon gives a damning account of his character. Meno's question can be rephrased to ask whether he can be taught virtue, that is, whether an ambitious and ruthless young man can be taught to be virtuous. Further, Meno thinks he already knows what virtue is. In line with his ambitions he thinks it is the ability of a man to manage public affairs for the benefit of himself and his friends and harm his enemies.
Socrates' acknowledgement that he does not know stands is stark contrast. Meno thinks he knows what virtue is and will do what he thinks he knows is virtuous. Socrates does not know and thus will live the examined life. He strives to live virtuously through examination, knowing that he does not know.
He brings up the bees not simply to make the point that Meno is giving him a swarm rather than a single answer to what virtue is, but to raise the question of the nature of bees. Behind the question of the nature of bees is the question of the nature of man. The virtue of a man is not distinct from the nature of man.
Regarding the myth of recollection ( anamnesis ) if one does not already have some sense of virtue how can it be recognized? If virtue is completely absent then it cannot be taught. It must in some sense already be present in a person. Meno's initial question is revealing:
What does it mean for virtue to be teachable? It is not to putting knowledge in the soul in which virtue is absent. Teaching and practice are related. It is not teaching or practice, but teaching through practice. It is only if men do to some extent possess it by nature that it can be fostered.
It is the second time @Hello Human has not responded to my reply, although both my replies were positive and approving.
I also saw that he/she actually did not respond to anyone else in this topic after 12 days he/she created it. Think also that he/she explicitly asked at the end "But what do you think?"
I suggest that you also delete yours. (Replace the text of your comment with just a dot and save it.) But then you might have some reason not to.
:up:
However, it seems to me that the issue is not yet solved. A link between virtue and wisdom has definitely been established, but the strength of the link still seems unknown, as the possibility of virtue being equivalent to moral knowledge still has not been ruled out.
:up:
Quoting Fooloso4
I think that "courage" may actually refer to the golden mean between rashness and cowardice as opposed to referring to what is measured by "rashness" and "cowardice. What is measured is willpower. A lack of it is called cowardice, an overabundance of it is called rashness, and a right amount of it is called courage. By using the terms in this way, courage becomes a part of human excellence, just as wisdom is. So perhaps the whole issue is just a matter of arbitrary definitions.
Then someone who knows that fighting 10 men attacking a bank alone is reckless, that doing nothing is cowardly, and that calling the police is the right mean is courageous, even if he does not call the police out of fear ? What I'm trying to say is, sometimes, knowing is not enough to start doing. I can very well know that ghosts don't exist, yet continue being scared of them at night.
I think that to defend the "wisdom is the greatest of all virtues" thesis, there is a seeming gap between knowing the right thing and doing the right thing that needs to be explained in a way that reduces all good actions to wisdom.
I think that the idea of adaptive habits may actually be an an abstraction of the virtues as opposed to something that something the virtues may be reduced to. Or perhaps it is both.
This is Aristotle's formulation. What 'the mean' means, however, is not so simple. For more see Joe Sachs article on Aristotle's Ethics in the IEP Here.
I think we can all agree that they are at least.
You can, but would that be virtuous? It hibk that in this ethical scheme the right thing to do is to try to get rid of this phobia
Wisdom might be the process of discriminating between the two, cultivating the garden in order to prevent and eliminate bad plants, and plant and maintain good seeds/plants.
I see. :up:
Unfortunately for us, doing the right thing always involves at least some amount of guessing. So perhaps Plato desires something that we cannot ever completely have.
:up:
Quoting Fooloso4
Good point. But that does not rule out the possibility that the sense of virtue may actually be something that originated completely from within the virtuous. Yes, for virtue to be taught at any given moment, the student must already have some sense of virtue at that moment. But only at that moment. So that sense of virtue does not necessarily come from within the person, perhaps it is acquired when someone endowed with reason encounters some particular circumstances. But then again, reason is a virtue. So maybe sense of virtue = reason.
Sorry for not answering to you all earlier. Ill do my best to answer faster from now on.
The right thing to do is indeed to get rid of the phobia, but is knowing that you must get rid of it sufficient to get rid of it, or are there other factors other than knowledge at play ?
Fair enough.
... But, hey, you still didn't answer me! :smile:
Sorry for that! Do you mind saying what your reply was ?
One thing that should not be overlooked is that, as with the question of justice in the Republic, the question of virtue is of concern to those who raise these questions. It matters. That it matters, that we care, is not something that can be taught. It is a necessary condition for it to be taught and learned.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/720343
But it's too late now. I have deleted it about a week ago.
Something Aristotle called practical wisdom. Knowing is not enough because unless one acts one does not get rid of the phobia. So it is a composition of action and knowledge, or in Aristotelian terms actualized knowledge
:up:
I imagine from there we can generalize and conclude that there is more to virtuous action than knowledge. So it seems virtue is not equal to knowledge.
And now we have also distinguished between wisdom and knowledge. So it seems the conclusion for now is: wisdom is equivalent to virtue but not equivalent to knowledge.
Ok I see.
I think this all is correct...
From the IEP article Aristotle:Ethics
He goes on to say:
The formulation "virtue is knowledge" does not mean passive knowledge of what virtue is. It is, rather, knowing as an active doing.
Children can learn virtues but they lack the years of experience required for wisdom. That means virtues are reducible to something that is not equal to wisdom.
There is a plurality of virtues and moderation must go with courage or you get a nut case with very bad judgment such as someone who has gone berserk.
It is not an act of knowing but a state of knowledge. This state is not achieved by knowing abot something.
From the IEP:
Aristotle ties this all together under the idea of to kalon, the beautiful. The beautiful connects the perceiver with things perceived as they are. One must be in the proper state, be a beautiful soul, in order to perceive the beauty of things as they are. More specifically, to know that these choices and actions are beautiful and those ugly.
Yes, but from that follows that knowledge as perceiving is not enough for virtue because this knowledge is only actualized in action, no? Actually what I get from the article is that virtue only arises in action. A further assumption must be made to make the claim that knowledge by itself is (a) virtue sound, that is that a knowledgable person will also act upon that knowledge. That to me seems a shaky assumption though, though might well be one made by Ari.
As I understand it, it is the state of being of the virtuous person that is actualized. This is the case whether one acts on that knowledge or not. But yes, it would be wrong to consider virtue in the absence of action.
Quoting Tobias
This distinction is often blurred in such discussions.
.
I might do something considered virtuous but that does not make me virtuous. My reason for doing it might have nothing to do with virtue.
Yes, but the virtue would be entirely without consequence if you would not act on it and that seems wasteful. Being wasteful hardly seems virtuous. A soldier who knows what to do and acts on it, seems to me more worthy than a soldier who knows what to do but stays passive.
Quoting Fooloso4
Yes, Kant made a similar point centuries later and it is a point well taken. However, I think we should be watchful to make virtue entirely subjective, in the sense of a quality of the subject. It threatens to overburden the subjective side and we will only be able to judge actors and not acts. To me the attraction of virtue ethics rests in the reciprocal or perhaps dialectical relation. The virtuous person is virtuous because he displays virtue, he acts.In the action the virtue is highlighted. Without knowledge of course the act is random, but without action knowledge is pointless.
But we do act. There is no getting around that.
What guides our actions? Aristotle's answer is we act according to the way we are disposed.
Quoting Tobias
I agree. I think Aristotle would as well. He lived the examined life. Central to his ethics is deliberation. He typically reviewed the opinions of others. He gave rational arguments in favor of one opinion over others.
Interesting point. But a little vague it seems to me. If we take the traditional definition of knowledge as justified true belief (at least just for the purpose of that discussion), and that we say that it is something requiring mental effort, what does it mean exactly? Does it mean that we have to continuously put in effort to justify it ? Or does it mean that we have to constantly put in effort to believe in it ? Or both ?
Quoting Agent Smith
They seem a compatible, even complementary, quartet.
Given that the main preoccupation of ethics at that time was the telos of human beings, it seems to me that goodness would be what gets one closer to that telos. So goodness would lie both in the action and the doer.
:up:
Quoting Athena
It seems to me that years of experience are neither necessary nor even sufficient for wisdom. They can definitely help foster it, but years of experience are useless without the use of reason to extract knowledge from them. Of course children have neither fully developed reason nor years of experience, but Id say that, on average, they have some wisdom.
Quoting Athena
:up:
Obviously, Aristotle (the author) was no fool!
But for the purpose of this discussion, what is meant by knowledge is not justified true belief.
Quoting Hello Human
It means, as @180 Proof pointed out that hexis is a matter of praxis of active doing rather than a passive condition. It is not as if one attains a state of knowledge from which one can then act virtuously based on that knowledge. There is still, in particular situations, the need for moral deliberation.
Quoting Hello Human
Not to justify it, but to make the right choice in an attempt to do what is best.
Quoting Hello Human
It is not a matter of belief.
Rather than goodness being what gets one closer to that telos, what gets one closer to that telos is what is good, what is in accord with human nature.
Quoting Hello Human
The question is what kind of thing a virtue is. If we look at the act itself we might regard it as good, but that does not mean it is a virtuous act. If what we regard as good in the act is not what was intended then the act was not virtuous even if the consequences are regarded as good.
Follow up: It requires continued work in order to maintain:
I was raised by a mother who thought I was a child with great wisdom. I have tried to live up to that my whole life. :rofl: The older I get, the less wise I think I am. I look back on my life with horror about how much I did not understand. I wish we lived at least 300 years. I am concerned that if we live only 100 years, we might still not know enough to be sure of our wisdom. Truly Socrates was the wisest, because he knew there was so much he did not know.
And of course, just getting old does not assure we gain any wisdom at all. I used to think rich people were intellectually superior and then I met some well-off people and I was horribly disappointed about them not exactly being the intellectual people I expected them to be. They didn't know any more than the poor folk and didn't care any more than the poor folk. Their life goals were pretty much about money and social status, not gaining wisdom.
However, I want to make a point that how our brains function literally changes with age. The Greeks doubted if anyone could learn anything of a philosophical nature until at least age 30 and when we did have liberal education it was part of our culture to think age 30 was still youth and just beginning to be capable of serious thinking.
While a google search leads to mostly negative explanations of the age brain, there is a positive....
That means it is too late for me to learn math, but I can enjoy the wonder of pi and the history of math and appreciate the importance of math. I can also be angery with sexist father who prepared his son to be an engineer and insisted I major in home economics. :lol: I really really wish I understood the value of math when I was young enough to develop those neurons. My IQ would be much higher if I had learned advanced math.
Second childhood! To be one with the Tao, all you gotta do is reach a ripe old age, eh?
Quoting Athena
:up:
Mother knows best!
If those are the terms on which you want to start from, so be it.
Quoting Fooloso4
But the point of moral deliberation is to attain a state of knowledge from which we can act virtuously.
Quoting Fooloso4
So, if I understand, we must put in continuous effort to make the right choice, and that right choice is knowledge?
But that is not what Plato and Aristotle thought.
Quoting Hello Human
The effort is to maintain a stable equilibrium of the soul. It is in this state of being that we are most likely to make good choices. This is not a state of knowledge. What the right choice is, is in many cases not something we know. Aporia is the condition for moral deliberation.
The virtuous one solves problems.
:snicker:
Ok I see.
Quoting Fooloso4
If virtue = goodness, then wouldnt that mean that a good act is also a virtuous act ? Or do you think that virtue is not equal to goodness ?
Quoting Fooloso4
Yes, but goodness may not lie at all in the consequences in actuality. I think goodness lies only in the action and in the virtue, so the consequences are neither good nor bad, because it seems to me that the domain of morality is human action, as its the only thing under our direct control.
Quoting Fooloso4
Quoting Fooloso4
Ok I see, but I dont see how this ties into the issue of whether virtue is equal to wisdom.
Quoting Fooloso4
Does it matter what they thought ?
The virtuous act is good, but virtue does not equal goodness. What is good is not limited to what is virtuous.
Quoting Hello Human
The good, according to Plato and Aristotle, is what we all seek. We do not, however, always agree on what the good is. In distinction from others, the philosopher seeks the good in the sense of inquiry into the question of what the good is.
Although we cannot control the consequences of our actions, we are not indifferent to them, they matter.
Quoting Hello Human
See above:
Quoting Fooloso4
Quoting Hello Human
That depends. If we are to understand Socrates claim then it does. If we are to take the claim on its own in light of whatever it is we think virtue and wisdom are then perhaps not, unless we are open to the possibility that they may have something to teach us about these things.
As it is, "virtuous" means either celibate, or playing good on the violin, and "good" means something nobody can define but we all understand what it is.
What then are those other good things other than virtue ? And what is it that makes something good ?
IQuoting Fooloso4
Ok I see.
Quoting Fooloso4
Yes, we shouldnt be indifferent to them, but I think that doesnt mean that they can be good or bad, it means that we have to consider them when making a decision, but what is good or bad, in the end, is the action we take.
Quoting Fooloso4
So if I understand well, you think that to be wise is to have realized human excellence, and that to be wise is to have achieved some equilibrium of the soul ?
I think it depends on who uses the words. Someone who thinks that virtue is equal to good would mean the same thing by both words, while someone else would mean that good is a word to define, and virtue is an idea that may or may not be the exact definition of good. Someone else may think that good is the fulfillment of ones purpose and that virtue is the means for achieving it.
Our actions may have unintended consequences. We may think doing this or that is good, but if the result is harm and suffering, then is the action good?
Quoting Hello Human
Rather than something achieved,the idea of human excellence is something to aspire to, like the just city/soul in the Republic, an image in speech. And, as with the discussion in the Republic, it depends not simply on an equilibrium, but the right balance of the parts, each seeking its own desire.
I think there are nuances in how responsible one is for the consequences, and that affects the morality of the action, the more responsible we are, that is, the more control one has over the consequences, the more the action is bad.
Quoting Fooloso4
Ok I see. And what is knowledges place in this ?
Since the good is what we aim for, it is knowledge of the good. This may be possible for one who has achieved human excellence, but for the rest of us we rely on deliberation about what seems best.
So if I understand your view of virtue and wisdom well, virtue is human excellence, which consists in balance in ones soul and a person who has achieved human excellence is wise.
Also if I understand your view of goodness in general, the good is what everyone seeks, and what everyone seeks is knowledge of the good.
And then those two views are combined which leads to this reasoning:
P1: if to be virtuous is to have achieved excellence, this state of excellence being wisdom, and
P2: that knowledge of the good is the highest good, then
C: Knowledge of the good is virtue, which is wisdom.
But not everyone seeks knowledge of the good. They simply assume that what they seek, what they desire, is good. If, however, they were to seek the good rather than whatever it is they desire, then they would seek knowledge of the good. Or to put it differently, their desire would be to know the good.
Quoting Hello Human
Yes, but knowledge is not a passive possession. It is the active state of the virtuous person who is wise.
Is wisdom best though of as the skill of living a good life ? Is it like riding a bike ? You get better by falling off less and less. Maybe you can end up riding hands free.
You mention courage. Maybe knowledge makes us less afraid of death or relative poverty in the first place. Maybe knowledge clarifies what's essential, counsels us to do what we can and forgive and accept what cannot be prevented, even with care and skill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phronesis
Behavour does not equal knowledge.
They can both be good, but that does not make them equal.
GAAAAAAA!!!!!
Nice! :up:
Quoting Fooloso4
Ok I see.
So, first of all, what do you mean exactly by balance in ones soul ?
Quoting god must be atheist
I think the lines are kind of blurry here. Knowledge, no matter the definition given, definitely still is related in a very significant way to behavior. Does mental activity equal behavior then ?
Quoting Agent Smith
Interesting position, why do you think so ?
:up:
I cannot tell you exactly what it means, but the politics of the soul as discussed in Plato's Republic is a good place to start. The soul is a competition of desires. Different souls are ruled by different desires. The just soul is one in which the various desires are brought into a hierarchical order, from low - bodily desires, to high - the desire for the just, beautiful, and good.
Ok I see.
So, do you consider wisdom to be a synonym of virtue or do you think they relate to each other in a different way ?
No. If you go over what I have said, this should be clear.
Going over what you have said, it seems to me that wisdom for you is the state of having achieved human excellence, so is my understanding here correct ?
It is not that wisdom is the state of human excellence, but that someone who has achieved human excellence is wise. It might be possible, for example, to be wise but in poor health.
Not blurry at all. There are no lines here either. Two things that are related are not each other, they are not one and the same thing. And that is the crux of the matter which you so adamantly don't want to see.
Some examples: Physics is related to chemistry, but physics is not the same as chemistry.
Soccer is related to rugby, but they are not the same thing.
Marriage is related to prostitution, but they are not the same thing.
Jesus is related to Zeus, but they are not the same gods.
Stupidity is related to ignorance, but they are not the same thing.
Knowledge is related to behaviour, but they are not the same thing.
Virtue is related to wisdom, but they are not the same thing.
It's just you. These things were discussed but by other names.
Where? If it's not too much to ask I'd be grateful for a link. Muchas gracias.
No links, unless pointing to texts like Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Ethics and Politics count as links.
Look at the relation and distinction between nature and custom or logos and nomos.
No problemo!
So "wisdom" is the state of being a wise person, which is having achieved human excellence ?
The term "state" can be misleading. It is not a condition. It is the realization or actualization of a capacity.
In my lived experience thus far, I have learned that wisdom comes from understanding and virtue follows as naturally as rivers stream into the ocean.The exchanges and experiences that shape us and "mistakes" that can eventually lead to clarity are the path towards knowing. Once you know something, you can not stop knowing but you can choose to ignore it.
To ignore that which is known is not virtuous. To know, and to behave accordingly is to understand and this I think, is to live virtuously.
Wisdom is knowing that you can't ignore because you have felt the consequences deeply, right down to the core of your being. Virtue is the natural outcome.
An example and metaphor being that if you touch a hot stove enough or for prolonged periods of intervals and the pain that you feel tells you to stop and then you cease repeating this action, then you are no longer behaving out of ignorance to the cause and effect of that particular action. You know from personal experience that the result is painful and that you don't like it. The motivation to not feel the pain again may be enough for you.
Would we call this wisdom or is that threshold to be earned at a soul deep level?
You can break this down even further. By performing an action that causes damage to yourself, you are also harming the body that you inhabit which was freely given to you by the universe.You didn't do anything to earn this body, yet you utilize it. By harming it, you are harming something that ultimately does not belong to you. Perhaps you might realize this if you choose to knowingly harm yourself for a period of time for any myriad of reasons.
Even deeper still, by causing bodily injury to yourself, you will require resources to aid in the healing process. During that period, you may be limited in your typical abilities. These two results pull from your environment and those who you co-exist with. The result is that to continue to do things which cause harm to yourself also saps energy from others. You can easily cause harm to those around you, by harming yourself. The true realization that your actions have an affect on those whom you are connected with brings you in alignment with reality. This ironically painful lesson may come with the realization that you have betrayed your fellow beings and yourself by continuing to act in ignorance. To really understand this, is when I think that we reach wisdom. This leads to greater virtue.
Ok I see that my argument wasnt very sound. But I think that knowledge, given that it implies at least in some way belief, may be classified as behavior, but of a mental kind. So, why do you think we shouldnt consider knowledge as some kind of mental behavior?
So, wisdom means being wise, which means having realized ones full potential?
Nice!
When you say that virtue is the natural outcome of wisdom, do you mean that wisdom always leads to virtue, or that wisdom encourages the flourishing of virtue ?
There are other capacities involved in realizing full human potential. Not everyone's potential reaches the full human potential.
My perspective is that aspects of wisdom are a threshold that once reached, resonate within the soul in such an way that virtue naturally will follow. We approach and cross this when we can not longer deny (ignorance) the reality of something. Can rivers choose not to flow into the ocean?
In this way, it seems we are being shaped by things that are beyond our comprehension. I think that this is why when we begin to try to show off our goodness and claim it as our own in the way of ego identification that we feel we are losing our way, because we are losing that deep sense of gratitude for our place and connection within the mysteries of the universe and the true qualities of virtue lose their authenticity.
Virtue can be traced back to wisdom and wisdom reveals virtue. I think that within the territory of virtue and wisdom, the innate qualities of the soul flourish in varying degrees of clarity. Examples of this would be honesty, integrity and resilience, to name a few.
I think that everything that we do is ultimately seeking this clarity. Our actions in each moment simultaneously reveal both our wisdom and our lack of virtue.
This is an interesting and useful analogy. Thank you for sharing.
What are those other capacities then, and how do they relate to wisdom ?
Wisdom, on the other hand, may sometimes express misanthropic ideas.
And where does courage fit into this according to you ?
Quoting Universal Student
What does it mean for a quality of virtue to be authentic?
Quoting Universal Student
What does it mean for wisdom to reveal virtue ?
By innate do you mean that they appear naturally, or that they are always there but must be cultivated by virtue and wisdom ?
Why would wisdom express misanthropic ideas ?
You'll need to look up misanthrophy; according to the Wikipedia page, there are moral arguments that make us not the best group to hang out with.
I think that courage has a relationship with fear and resistance to change. I myself am still learning the truth and meaning of this word as I approach understanding, so my perspectives may seem particularly wide and open to interpretation with a great deal of room for exploration.
We often hear that courage is doing something even when one feels afraid.
What is fear?
I have exposed myself to fearful circumstances that were highly foolish and irrational. I do not consider doing so to be virtuous. Often, the motivations driving me in those moments seemed to come from some kind of clinging or resistance to change. I was trying to find some way to have control over the unraveling of events and circumstances that were already in motion. I might have then mistakenly thought that this was admirable or some quality to be appreciated but in reflection of those actions now, I see that this was only ignorance underneath the guise of courage. We can tell ourselves anything to justify behavior if we are determined to hold on to those belief structures. These were resistances to the flow and those actions put me in real danger that was harmful to myself and those around me.
I have likewise acted consciously and mindfully, choosing to move in a direction that seemed unfamiliar and thus was perceived as frightening when in reality, there was little real threat or danger and the outcome was more beneficial, healing and useful overall despite my resistances to traveling in that unfamiliar territory. In those circumstances, what I thought was fear was my mind distorting and attempting to predict an outcome which was unknown to me. Allowing myself to explore, remain curious and do something outside of my comfort zone even though I felt what I perceived to be fear required an inner strength and willingness that might resemble courage.
I think that my meaning is that an authentic quality of virtue is true.
"Reveals" implies that the virtue was always there, within the wisdom.
Dormant perhaps, to be awakened and brought forth into potential. If something exists presently, then it has always existed and always will, in some form or another. This removes the linear perspective of time.
There are many virtues and as your logic is evidently right vices then have also always existed.
So then as virtue desiring beings with vice being ever present how does one not get tempted by it ?
Maybe the point is preciously that we are tempted by them? How could virtue exist, without the opportunity to restrain from temptation of the corresponding vice? It seems like we need contrast and comparison to maintain a balance of these existing things.
Of course and if we do somehow fall into vice to recognise whether that is helpful or not and if appropriate chose virtue.
Agreed. To recognize the usefulness of a thing, through interaction and exchange. To experience and thus learn.
Quoting Universal Student
But what if you did not have fear when going in that unfamiliar direction? Would it be courageous anyway?
Quoting Universal Student
I still dont understand what « authenticity » means when talking about virtue, could you please explain some more?
Quoting Universal Student
So if I understand well, wisdom finds the virtue and allows it to be expressed ?
Quoting Universal Student
So those qualities are present in the mind but they arent necessarily expressed?
Quoting Universal Student
That is if you define vice as the temptation to do wrong. But couldnt vice be defined as giving in to that temptation, in opposition to virtue which itself implies refusing to follow it?
Unless someone's brain is functioning in a way that is atypical, it is a human response when facing the unknown to feel fear.
If someone is able to move in any unknown direction without feeling fear, then I would not consider that to be courageous. I would however consider that to be unusual.
In reflection, I see that my words may not very well represent my meaning.
When I speak of that which is authentic, I mean that which is truth. I understand virtue to be doing that which is in alignment with truth.
My understanding is that truth already within us. The wisdom is the unraveling of truth and seeing it in greater clarity, as is reflected in our ability to see reality clearly without illusion. This happens through experiences and increased awareness. Virtue is the underlining quality, the expression of the action which aligns with that truth.
I wouldn't say the mind, exactly. My understanding is that the mind is one part of the whole, attempting to interpret, understand and communicate that which is. I would say that because the truth is within us, that those qualities are also either being actively expressed or they are not.
My perspective of these things has changed enough that I am uncertain of how to respond and need to reflect on, "vice" and "virtue".
This does bring to mind however, polarities.
I will return here to this if I reach a point where I feel I have a clearer understanding of these things. I don't want to respond to anything willy nilly.