Next we must consider what virtue is. Since things that are found in the soul are of three kinds- passions, faculties, states of character, virtue must be one of these.
By this point you know which one virtue is going to prove to be, but ask a different question: are these the only things found in the soul? Are there other candidates you can think of? If so, are those candidates explicable as one of these three kinds of things?
By passions I mean appetite, anger, fear, confidence, envy, joy, friendly feeling, hatred, longing, emulation, pity, and in general the feelings that are accompanied by pleasure or pain;...
An example of the above recommendation: as we recently discussed, empathy is not one of these classical passions. As a concept it dates to the 19th century. We can see that it belongs here, though: it is like envy, where feelings arise from observations about about someone else (whose life might not really be enviable at all, if you truly knew all the facts about it; consider how many rich and famous celebrities prove to be miserable).
The psychology of the soul is going to be unfamiliar to any contemporary reader. The Greek concept of a "passion" is not quite like ours. Many of you might have encountered the ancient concept through the "Passion of the Christ," where what is meant by the word is an externally-imposed suffering. The Greek word is pathos, πάθος, which Terrence Irwin prefers to translate as "feeling" instead to avoid the contemporary connotations of romance. What is important is that it is a passive rather than an active state. It is directly translated as "what happened to him," rather than a thing that one actively creates. That's almost the opposite of what we mean today when we say that something is a "passion project," i.e., something you are trying to create or realize actively because it is important to you. It's a sort of suffering that 'just happened to you' because of external things imposing upon you.
...by faculties [he means] the things in virtue of which we are said to be capable of feeling these, e.g. of becoming angry or being pained or feeling pity;...
The word here is δύναμις, dunamis, which didn't make a similar leap into a clear English cognate as did pathos (Gk) / passio (Lat.) / passion. It's being translated as "capacity," but might also be translated as "strength" or "power." Whereas the feelings/passions happen to you, the faculty is the way in which you have the power to respond to those feelings that are coming in from outside. The feeling of sorrow might befall you when your father dies; the strength you have is to become angry about it.
Anger, though, was also listed as a passion; becoming angry as a capacity. This is a very fine distinction that the Greeks made that we generally do not between what is coming in from outside, versus what our soul is creating on its own.
To stick with the example from above, you might think of our contemporary sense of "outrage" as a parallel. If an artist constructs a work that makes a viewer feel empathy (i.e. a passion is successfully imposed upon the viewer by an artist's work), the response is often for the viewer to "get outraged" about the matter. This is their internal response to the external imposition. This is the point at which they are internally capable of doing something to respond to what is coming in from outside.
...by states of character the things in virtue of which we stand well or badly with reference to the passions, e.g. with reference to anger we stand badly if we feel it violently or too weakly, and well if we feel it moderately; and similarly with reference to the other passions.
EN II.4 makes clear, then, that virtue will be one of these. Aristotle nevertheless restates it plainly.
Now neither the virtues nor the vices are passions, because we are not called good or bad on the ground of our passions, but are so called on the ground of our virtues and our vices, and because we are neither praised nor blamed for our passions (for the man who feels fear or anger is not praised, nor is the man who simply feels anger blamed, but the man who feels it in a certain way), but for our virtues and our vices we are praised or blamed.
Again, we feel anger and fear without choice, but the virtues are modes of choice or involve choice. Further, in respect of the passions we are said to be moved, but in respect of the virtues and the vices we are said not to be moved but to be disposed in a particular way.
Indeed even for us no one would blame you for feeling empathy for a character in a well-constructed movie; if the artist did his or her job well, you ought to do so. The externally imposed thing is not your fault, and thus not the ground of praise or blame.
For these reasons also they are not faculties; for we are neither called good nor bad, nor praised nor blamed, for the simple capacity of feeling the passions; again, we have the faculties by nature, but we are not made good or bad by nature; we have spoken of this before. If, then, the virtues are neither passions nor faculties, all that remains is that they should be states of character.
Thus we have stated what virtue is in respect of its genus.
Sometimes Western culture is said to be divided between those who believe that man is evil by nature, and needs society to make him good (often said to be the Catholic position); versus those who believe man is good by nature, and is warped by the impositions of society (often said to be the 'modern' position, meaning 18th century or so -- Jean Jacques Rousseau being a good example).
Aristotle is in neither camp strictly speaking, but he tends toward the former. Nature does not make us bad or good for him. However, we have seen that he believes that good laws can train us to at least practice virtue, even if they do not themselves create virtuous character. To even be open to that we need to have had a proper upbringing, meaning that we have been exposed to stories of heroes and justice and courage and taught to appreciate them.
The point is spelled out clearly in Politics I:
"But he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god... For man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all; since armed injustice is the more dangerous, and he is equipped at birth with arms, meant to be used by intelligence and virtue, which he may use for the worst ends. Wherefore, if he have not virtue, he is the most unholy and the most savage of animals, and the most full of lust and gluttony."
In pre-Christian pagan Greece, the possibility that a man might be (or become) a god was open, but the tendency towards needing training by law toward virtue is clear.
No comments:
Post a Comment