In the last class we dove head first into a discussion of practical reasoning and argued that a virtuous action must be one that reflects the truth (the conformity of one's will and intellect) in an individual's process of deliberation. In other words, an action is good in itself when it mirrors the human ergon or proper work of being a rational animal. So now, let us look at courage again. How for Aristotle can reason have anything to do with the pressures of battle, where one hardly has any time to chose or deliberate about the best course of action. Wouldn't such deliberation paralyze action, leading to inaction and cowardliness? Is all virtous activity really aimed at the good insofar as it is oriented toward the value of reason or contemplation? To answer this, be sure to think about the nature of war itself and its relation to the city....
Cheers,
Dr. Layne
Aristotle states that someone who is fearless in the face of a noble death is courageous. Since everything is defined by its end, Aristotle states that a noble end is courageous, because courage is noble.
ReplyDeleteAristotle also enforces that courage must "face and fear the right things, from the right motive, in the right way, and at the right time, and feel confidence under these conditions." If a soldier can fulfill these requirements, he qualifies as courageous. If a soldier does not know why he is fighting, is not sure if he should die yet, has not thought out his plan of execution for the way in which he could possibly end his life, or feels no confidence in his decision, he is not showing courage. An action taken in rashness, anger, or ignorance is not courageous, because these traits are only shadows of courage. One could end up making the "right" decision out of anger, ignorance, etc., but the action would then be involuntary, and an involuntary action could never be courageous.
I disagree with Chad’s interpretation of the text. Looking at the text, Aristotle doesn’t say a soldier who does not know what he is fighting for is not courageous. He actually says the opposite. Aristotle talks about the difference between the citizen soldier and the professional soldier in relation to courage. He explains that the citizen soldier has true courage because they fight for unseen reasons. However, the professional soldier is usually the first to flee making them less brave then the citizen soldier who stays to fight without any training or skill. This is reiterated when Aristotle says the brave man is not a fearless man and “to fear some things is even right and noble.” In addition, Aristotle believes that passion can also be seen as courage because “those who act from passion, like wild beasts rushing at those who have wounded them, are thought to be brave.” So, once again the professional soldier who fears death more than disgrace is not seen as brave but instead a coward. Lastly, the “brave” men are only confident because they “have conquered often and against many foes” where as a citizen soldier is confident for other reasons.
ReplyDeleteThe key to Aristotle’s musings on courage is the idea of fear. It is how the soldier (or anyone for that matter) handles fear that determines their commitment to virtue. The brave man, he believes, is not a fearless man. He is, however, a “dauntless” man. He faces the things he fears and continues. This kind of reason is what comes into play on the battlefield. Aristotle asserts that it is the citizen soldier who is the bravest because he fights through his fear even though he has little to no personal investment in the war. The paid mercenaries, he says, are often the first to run when they are outnumbered while the citizen soldiers die fighting at their posts. The kind of selfish deliberation done by the mercenaries definitely leads to both inaction and cowardliness.
ReplyDeleteAristotle does not believe that all virtuous activity is aimed at the good. For him, there are three options: the coward, the rash man, and the brave man. They are all dealing with the same situation but are marked by how they handle it. If one is rash, he may be acting towards a virtuous end but is not moved by the right reason. He is too hot-blooded or boastful. The coward fears everything and therefore his reason is most likely not aligned with his will. The brave man has mastered the balance between the two.
I think I just contradicted myself. Neither the boastful man nor the coward are truly virtuous in Aristotle’s eyes, so it can’t be said that their activity will be virtuous. In that case, only the courageous man would be acting out of true virtue and since we only call a man brave if he has acted for the good, virtuous activity must always lead to good ends.
This brings up a question I keep running into. Maybe we can discuss it in class: Does Aristotle believe good is relative, or are some simply ignorant to the actual “universal” good? In 4 he says “different things appear good to different people, and, if it so happens, even contrary things.” Is he saying that the good is relative or that it is only people’s perceptions of it that are different?
In the text Aristotle mainly mentions two types of men when he speaks of war. He mentions the citizen soldier as well as the professional solider. Out of the two it appears that Aristotle finds the citizen soldier to have more courage in most circumstances. A citizen soldier faces danger because of penalties imposed by the law, as well as the honors he hopes to gain for such actions. He has fear of the danger he must face, but still goes to war due to virtue. However, in the sake of the professional solider, he goes to war with the idea of being the stronger and more powerful man. He fears not what he faces because he goes in extremely confident. For them it is as Aristotle said the “Athletes against the amateurs.” However, when the two men face certain defeat, it is often the professional soldier who runs off in fear, while the citizen solider stays to die to end his life with honor. Between the two I think this clearly makes the citizen solider more courageous. He goes to war with a plan. He reasons that fighting and facing his fears for honor, and to avoid disgrace, is worth it, and he stays strong until the end. Unlike the professional solider, who goes in overly confident, with no fears, to run off in the end with is tail between his legs, afraid to die for honor.
ReplyDeleteAristotle discusses that a virtuous action must be first deliberated and reasoned to ensure that the will is in conformity with the action. In battle a soldier acts in the spur of the moment as there is no time to deliberate the course of action to take. Dr. Layne is asking a really good question and I must say that I am at lost about how to answer this. I think, although you do not have time to deliberate actions in battle, it is still considered virtuous as Aristotle discusses the fact that when you are put on the spot, it is these actions that show your true character as there was little time for preparation and “sudden actions must be in accordance with one’s state of character.”
ReplyDeleteAristotle discusses the courage of the citizen soldier as true courage. He defines that citizen soldier as the one that “seems to face dangers because of the penalties imposed by laws and the reproaches they would otherwise incur and because of the honors they win by such action…” However after Dr. Layne’s discussion in our last class I am a little bit confused. We talked about her example with her son eating all his dinner only to get praise from her, which meant the act wasn’t true virtue as the act was a means to an external end. From my interpretation, the citizen soldier is also acting as a means to an external end, that is, to avoid penalties and for the honor. Therefore the citizen soldier himself doesn’t see the good in the act of going to war itself? So why then does Aristotle describe this as true courage? If I have interpreted this wrong and any one is willing to explain my misconception your response will be greatly appreciated. I know I may have gotten a little side tracked in my answer but I think I need to clarify this before I move on. Thanks.
A soldier makes his decision to fight when he decides to go to war, not on the battlefield. He must do his deliberating and choosing before the battle begins or else it will result in cowardice. He must choose to fight before he actually begins to, and this decision must be in accordance with his will. He cannot just fight because he’s told to but because he feels it is the right choice.
ReplyDeleteAs said in class, the human function is to reason well. One cannot merely reason but this reason must be in accordance with will. You must want and believe in your decision truthfully. In order to best accomplish this you do what you were meant to do; hence, the lyre player playing the lyre and playing it well. This human function is the basis of a city. Each person doing his job and doing it well allows a city to flourish. Then, if war is to defend and to protect, when a city goes to war it is protecting itself, protecting this human function.
Wouldn't such deliberation paralyze action, leading to inaction and cowardliness? Is all virtous activity really aimed at the good insofar as it is oriented toward the value of reason or contemplation? To answer this, be sure to think about the nature of war itself and its relation to the city..
ReplyDeleteBy the action of choosing to be in the war itself, the soldier commits a courageous act. By choosing to remain in the war, the soldier continues his courageous act, to a certain extent, proving that his action and his intent are in harmony. His intent is to work for the greater good, a good outside of himself, the good of the polis (city). I think, that in this situation, war almost seen as one action. In war, yes, one's actions are quick, and it's hard to think and be deliberate, but the whole time one is fighting, the reason (we assume so--or else Aristotle deals with this later, as with the mercenaries who are simply bloodthirsty) for his fighting--the larger reason--is for a greater good, a good he himself as reasoned to be worthy of his life. And life, Aristotle states somewhere, is the best thing a person can have. Being willing to give that up makes one even more noble, or courageous.
^ I see all of this as truly contingent on the individual soldier's intention, though. So that probably has to be carefully examined.
Aristotle talks about the developing of a natural lean towards the virtuos action in any situation. With the five types of courage he talks about it seems that the deliberation that might take place happens well before a 'battle situation' is encountered. even if the chance to deliberate presented itself because there would be deliberation at all it would create a conflict with a soldiers passion and will anyway and thus would not be a virtuous act. virtuous activity that is truly aimed at the good must be aimed at good but does not need to be fully contemplated.
ReplyDeleteSometimes courage is acting without the opportunity to contemplate and aristotle knows that and doesn't discount the courage of a citizen soldier whose decided ahead of time to commit to his post no matter what knowing he doesn't know, like the professional soldier, when a fight is hopeless.
Reason and the Pressure of Battle --
ReplyDeleteIt is virtuous and good to combine both the will and the act, as long as each is in accordance with ones nature and reason. It is the nature of a human to reason. It is the nature of a citizen to assist his city. It is the nature of a soldier to fight for his nation. It is the nature of a mortal being to eventually be returned to the earth. Assuming all the above to be true, a soldier, by contributing to his country, by fighting for his nation, by accepting the possibility he may be returned to the earth, is acting virtuously, assuming he does all this in conjunction with the original and core human virtue: reason.
Furthermore, it is not necessary for the soldier to re-reason each of these things good. Once one self identifies as a solider, assuming they come to the above conclusions (it is in their nature to fight for their nation, ect.), and they strive to match action with will and reason, they will not second guess themselves on the battle field. They will have no need because they already know the virtuousness, or lack there of, of any given action via its accordance with the predetermined reasoning.
On a battlefield, a solider, acting virtuously, will face many dangers; however, because he is acting virtuously he will not succumb to fear and will fulfill his nature as a soldier and fight for his nation. As a result of his having faced danger and acted virtuously in their presence, he will be courageous.
As we touched on in class, to be virtuous, one did not have to be a philosophical thinker who did nothing but study reason and dedicate his or her life to deliberation. One example is that if one individual was a blacksmith, if they did their job well, therein serving their purpose and contributing the city as a whole, they were virtuous.
ReplyDeleteAlong similar lines, after a particular sermon, Martin Luther was stopped by a man who asked, "I have given my life to Jesus, what shall I do now to live a virtuous and Godly life?" Luther asked the man, "What is your profession?" When the man replied "A shoemaker, sir," Luther told him, "Then go. Make a good shoe and sell it at a fair price. That is how you can live a virtuous and Godly life."
I believe with Luther when he says that the value of life is following God's path for us, even if it is not each individual to be an international missionary or in the context of Aristotle's discussion, to be a philosopher. To be virtuous, especially in terms of the polis, is to do one's job well, to fill that particular purpose to which one has been assigned.
Now, for the solider, how does one do their job well? It is merely defined by a win-loss chart? Or the safety of the people he protects? From what I see in Aristotle's Book III, he seems to believe the solider who performs well is the one who is brave, therefore, the brave solider who acts with courage is virtuous, not those that reason that their life is too value and who contemplate the dangers and then run away, as we see in chapter 8. No, the courageous are those that have already reasoned and contemplated their purpose on the battlefield and fulfill their purpose or duty to the best of their ability.
As I look at a solider while seeking out the definition of courage, while keeping what I've stated previously about virtue, I begin to think that maybe virtue is more about moving in the direction of "the good" more than simply reason and contemplation. Certainly, contemplating is a means to become more virtuous, for one cannot be virtuous without the foresight of their course and being able to reason the proper path. However, it seems Aristotle has this concept of reason as a means to virtue as an end, where I believe virtue itself is a means to the end of "the good."
I recently had a thought pop into my head that I found to be rather interesting, though not fully formed as of yet. So, please, work with me a bit. A human's natural function is to reason. It is the city's (and, thus, the citizens' to a certain extent) responsibility to ensure that its citizens are able to reason. Anything that expedites this function is, therefore, good. So with all this having been established, and the reverse assumed true, war, in itself, is a base, ignoble act.
ReplyDeleteNow, with that said, it does not necessarily mean that the soldier is ignoble. Indeed, most everyone would say quite the opposite - that if any group of people were to be called noble, it would be soldiers. And this makes much sense, as it is the soldiers' responsibility to end war as quickly as possible, therefore bringing about a time of peace in which people can reason. In this way, anyone who fights for this purpose is virtuous in the abstract. The difference arises, as so often it does, in the particulars.
A sort of chicken-and-egg phenomenon arises, but to simplify it let's just say that soldiers reason beforehand that they will fight because it is noble. Or, more specifically, the citizen-soldier does, for if their will and reason are in line with this then they will die at their post before retreating, as Aristotle claims, without having to think about it at the moment. The professional soldier, on the other hand, will retreat in preference to death, and has decided this either explicitly or implicitly beforehand in believing they are strong enough not to face death. In retreating, not only do they fail to do all they can to end the war, but they leave themselves alive to fight another day, extending the war and disgracing themselves.
I realize that this wasn't very articulate, but I hope that I got the message across. Basically, one who instigates war is evil, but one who fights to end a war quickly is noble (simply sprinkle in some justified fear and BAM, you have courage). The reasoning comes beforehand, in the decision to fight. In this way a decision in the heat of the moment is not necessary so long as the reason is noble and matches one's will, as in the case of the citizen-soldier.
Lengthy deliberation does paralyze action, and in a war this would be a great mistake. However, deliberation does not presuppose hesitation. One could deliberate on a task or course of action within moments. In fact, it is best if one thinks about how to act in war, otherwise one will commit hasty actions. Additionally inaction does not lead one to be a coward, since inaction is itself a choice. A citizen who chooses to die defending his post maintained his previous action, but can hardly be considered a coward, and his decision is not inevitably a bad one. Admittedly, I struggle not to call the citizen-soldier rash. He defends his country when he is called too, and I am not a scholar in ancient Greek warfare, but I agree with Confucius and Socrates who said "To lead untrained people to war is to throw them away" and "A disorderly mob is no more an army than a heap of building materials is a house" respectively. The citizen soldier chooses to go into the war, and makes a respectable decision, but it is a farmer's virtue to farm, not to fight according to Aristotle. If Aristotle's idea of virtue should be believed, it should be left up to the professional soldiers to defend a country, not the citizens (unlike the country is essentially a military camp like Sparta was). So a mercenary who flees may be a coward, but he no working towards the good no more than a farmer who dies fighting (although the farmer is, in my opinion, far more courageous). The happy medium would be a standing army filled with those whose virtue it is to fight, which allows for specialization of labour to continue, which makes me happy.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that a soldier has to choose to be in an army, he probably won't know the pressures of battle until he is actually in that situation. So he probably wouldn't have time to deliberate on his choice to move forward with his decision. The choice to one day participate in the battle could be considered courageous, but it's difficult to truly say this until the soldier has traversed past the paralysis of actual battle.
ReplyDeleteI guess what I'm trying to put into words, in a nut shell, is that people can make the decision to go into battle, or to join an army, and that is a very courageous act, but true courage is sticking with it the whole time, not because that person feels obligated, but because he doesn't ever think about any other way; he would never have to reason with himself.
According to Aristotle, "we deliberate about things that are in our power and can be done". In battle, at times when actions must be swift, it is not in the power of the soldier to deliberate about what must be done. He must act in that instant. Therefore is lack of deliberation is not a lack of reasoning. His actions would still be in accordance with reason because he is still working towards an end. According to Aristotle, since courage is noble, the end is also noble. Therefore the nature of war must be good. So the nature of war is peace. As long as the soldier is working towards this end, his actions are virtuous and courageous since virtous activity is aimed at the good.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with aristotle. I think that the most virtuous of actions happens without deliberation. If a person instinctively does good, then that person is inherently good and does not need deliberation. Because courage is a virtue, the same applies to courage. Deliberation is not needed because the truly courageous person acts instinctively for the good (like a soldier dodging in front of a bullet).
ReplyDeleteI'm hung up on Aristotle's assertion that the fearless man is not courageous. I agree with that, to some extent, but I can't say WHY! It has driven me to the point of despair. I go back to square one: What is Fear, and what is it about fear that makes us shy away from it, and why does it make actions courageous?
ReplyDeleteAt first glance, fear seems evil. But, as the Church teaches, is not Fear of the Lord one of the fruits of the Holy Spirit? So in that context, at least, fear is a humbling respect towards the greater power of something else over ourselves, or at least of the potential power of something in comparison to our own power.
On the battle field, I believe everyone has fear (other than, as Aristotle asserts, those who have gone bonkers). This fear is the awareness and acknowledgment that one's life is at risk juxtaposed with the physical tendency to dislike pain and harm dealt towards one's body. There are two types of reactions to the fear; cowering in anxious wait for the lethal blow from an enemy's sword out of self preservation, and doing everything in your power, whether it be instinct or decision, to fight for that cause which your army is fighting. There is no rashness in war because the only rules are that the enemy must be killed; stepping onto the battlefield has already been the deciding factor for each soldier. Therefore, if a soldier fights for the preservation of his country (and presumably his view of the Good) at all after having healthily acknowledged his potential harm, there is bravery.
In battle, one must act quickly and decisively to defeat the enemy, lest the enemy use the soldier’s hesitation to gain advantage. This characteristic of combat can at first seem incompatible with Aristotle’s view that courage comes from reasoning. Surely the soldier who took time to reason out his every action as courageous would quickly be impaled on a foe’s weapon. How then can a soldier act courageously if he has no time to reason his action? I think that courage in this situation could not come from active reasoning, but rather from being courageous by habit. We discussed this a bit in last class. If a person practices a virtue enough, they will eventually grow to do it out of habit. This could also apply to a soldier in battle. If they were habitually courageous, then in battle, they would most likely be able to act courageously without reasoning out their actions as they would if they were at their leisure. A habitually courageous soldier would hopefully be able to simply act instinctively courageous. However, this is not to say that a habitually courageous man would necessarily follow thorough in battle, though it would predispose him to courage in warfare.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of a soldier, many of his virtuous actions act towards the greater good indirectly. Though the soldier himself may not be fulfilling the human virtue of reasoning because he doesn’t have time to deliberate intensely in battle, their actions allow others to be able to deliberate. Soldiers protect the city, and in the city, people are able to flourish and have the leisure to deliberate. Because the soldiers protect the city, they work towards the greater good by protecting the place that promotes reasoning.
Perhaps it might be reasonable to say that war, and thus the fighting between the individuals in war, lack any deliberation in the moment of battle. When faced in the heat of battle, any sense of reason or rational thinking is replaced with bloodlust and rage. If that were the case, then one can reason that war is never a good showcase of courage or even virtue, simply because the soldiers, in that very moment of killing, is not thinking of the well-being of the people, but for the act of killing. There are no morals involved.
ReplyDeleteHowever, one must consider how virtue is obtained in the first place. It seems to be completely subjective to me. If Aristotle is wrong about deliberation being a source of virtue, then the above view of war being a bad showcase of virtue could possibly be incorrect. If deliberation weren't a source of virtue, then the question is what makes the warriors of war virtuous, if war is indeed for virtue? One must understand the (subjective) source of virtue.
To summarize, I believe that in order to understand the virtuousness of war - or lack of it - one must understand where virtue comes from, whether it be reason (as Aristotle believes) or some other source. It seems to be a subjective term.
I would first like to wonder, on a tangent, how much Ancient Greek soldiers actually knew about the wars they were fighting? Surely, with the possible exception of Athens, most Greeks were not involved in the day to day decisions of their polis- they couldn't have known every reason the war was being fought! In fact, they probably knew very little about it, save for the propaganda they were fed. Even today, a soldier must, at some point, trust his commanding officer, because stopping to reason in the midst of battle would endanger not only the reasoner, but also his fellow soldiers, which is an un-deniable bad. So I would argue that although a soldier must make a reasoned decision about entering the war, once he is entered, that must be left behind before the battlefield, as it would indeed be debilitating.
ReplyDeleteHowever, on a side note, I find it extremely troubling that many people seem to define humans by what they do. A one who fights in wars acts as a soldier, but that does not define him. Nor does making shoes define the shoemaker. Instead, it is what one does in the leisure time that defines them. It is by using this time, in union with our jobs, to reason and peruse the good that we are truly fulfilled.
I don't know if Aristotle would agree (doubt it actually), but I think there is reason that supercedes anything we actively think about. We can convince ourselves of something down until it reaches to the very core of who we are. For the mercenary, this means nothing. He will fight until his odds are slim, he fights to prove he is powerful. He embodies the rashness that Aristotle describes and exhibits the cowardice when the odds no longer favor him. The citizen soldier shows the bravery. Whether consciously,unconsciously or both, he knows that all he loves, whether that be his city or his family, depends on his success or failure. When we care (truly care, not fleeting passionate bs) we will commit everything we have with no reservation, with no regard for the odds. That is true courage, abandoning all thoughts of self because you know those who make you who you are depend on you.
ReplyDeleteAs far as deliberation debilitating one in battle, this would only be possible if Aristotle is misinterpreted to be saying that all actions must be 100% thoroughly thought through. This is ridiculous, because, according to professor Lester E. Hunt, "in almost any situation that calls for a decision, the information available to the individual, and in addition the individual’s competence to process that information, are radically unequal to the task of demonstrating, or proving, what the best course of action is." One could sit and contemplate whether he should shoot with his bow the guy with the spear to his right, or the man with the sword to his left. That great deliberator is now dead. The best we can do is to make a decision. Even if it's not "the best" course of action, it is action, which is superior to inactivity on the battle field and it is more rational. Soldiers need to rely on common sense, even though it is rarely competent at making the best decision.
ReplyDeleteI think Aristotle's principles can be better applied to the bigger decisions, like engaging in war in the first place, rather than where to slash your opponent. For this is where contemplation and reason can be more effectively applied, mainly due to having more time and less immediate pressure. When Genghis Khan rolled across Asia and approached a new village to conquer, he was known for offering an ultimatum. Either they surrender, and he respects what rights they already possess, often being exceedingly religiously tolerant, or he kills every man woman and child, save a couple men who he would horribly maim in order that they would run ahead and warn the next village. In this case, it would be really, really stupid, and for Aristotle, immoral to take up arms. The reason being that the state is in place to protect men from force or violence, i.e., to allow them to make VOLUNTARY actions. Therefore, they are permitted to pursue their profession and deliberate and, in general, be virtuous. This isn't possible with a sword to your neck, nor with it in your back. For this reason, in Greece, a state which did recognize many rights and prevent coercion, it was virtuous for a farmer to take up arms. For if Greece was not defended, then it would become far more difficult to practice one's profession and attain "the good."
Critics of this idea might say that it's "a slave morality" (in the case of Nietzsche). Let the rest of them fight, you have basket weaving to do, for that is your calling and purpose. Let the farmer and the potter and the mason die. They're ugly anyways. But Aristotle believed us to be rational animals, who could communicate, and, therefore, organize. Since a rational species would know to ban together when beneficial and defend their way of life, it is virtuous to act so, for it is rational.
I think Doctah Layne started to say something at the end of the last class about a war being on the offensive or defensive, and yea, that definitely has much to do with whether a war is for the good or not.
ReplyDeleteA defensive war is most definitely encouraging peace... the greater good in most people's eyes. So a soldier fighting in the defensive, to protect his city/country is fighting for the right reasons generally. Then there's a whole lotta stuff concerning his rashness and cowardice that is individual, but not necessarily something he must deliberate on while in battle. The brave man (the civilian soldier) has some predetermined battlefield etiquette, right? The decision to wake up and fight for the sake of peace, continue fighting his enemy when odds are against him, and obviously, risk his life constitutes courage. The split second decisions he makes while fighting are based on this earlier determination, so there is not exactly a need to consider the specifics (right place, right time, right reasons) mid spear throw.
In the offensive war, things get a bit trickier. Deliberation, if the civ-soldier actually did this, may lead a him to the conclusion that killing people for the sake of owning more land/power or in revenge because someone stole your wife or blahblahblah, is wrong and just plain ruthless. Of course, he would probably still have to go to war, making him a coward. If he did this deliberation and decided the reasoning was sound, and then fought the valiant fight of a brave soldier... he's virtuous/courageous?
I planned next to say that this must mean all virtue must then not be aimed at the good, but then i realized that this soldier's ideal just weren't aimed at MY version of common good. This seems to be a hole (correct me if I'm wrong) in Aristotle's definition of virtue. How can we all be inclined to be good and everyone have their own version of what is good? I know, I know... "apparent good." But i think a shit ton of people would be in agreement with this offensive soldier, also though, that it does not make him correct with regard to the defensive army.
Are both soldiers courageous then? Is the offensive soldier ignorant then? I suppose Aristotle would say the offensive soldier was ignorant in the long run. There are too many what if's in this for me. I'm trying to look at this from his point of view, but i just don't believe everyone is inclined to the good. Therefore, reason or deliberation is not the source of virtue
Sorry i got off track.
I agree with Christine and also disagree with Aristotle. I still completely do not understand what reason has to do with being a virtuous person. If a soldier goes to war and fights for his country, then he's done a virtuous act. A rash firefighter running into a burning building to save a child is still virtuous. The act itself is virtuous. Just because the firefighter forgot to reason and contemplate the fire doesn't make the action less virtuous or respected.
ReplyDeleteI don't know, honestly, everything about Aristotle has confused me. There's very little I can agree with or even say is applicable to life.
So because reason sets us apart from animals, it's also what makes us virtuous? Without reason we cannot be virtuous? I know reason might help make us more virtuous, but to say it's the only path to virtue.. I just don't quite agree.
While under pressure of battle, when one has little or no time to deliberate about the most reasonable action, the person acts out of habit, instinctively. There is no time to think about what to do; one just trusts his first instinct and acts. So, really, will and intellect do conform when in battle, because soldiers are willful to survive, and are knowledgeable about how to survive.
ReplyDeleteOnce on the battlefield, reason is virtually forgotten about. Some men are rash and enjoy the actual fighting, and others will desert, but most men will do everything they can to survive besides running away, because survival instincts occur to men before reason and virtue do.
A lot can be said about someone in the heat of battle. If a soldier is fleeing with his army from a fight, and sees a wounded friend left behind, will he rush to his aid or follow on with his group? I'm not actually sure what the appropriate 'rational, reasonable' response to this situation would be. Surely it would be virtuous to help the friend, but would it be rational? If you thought that you wouldn't be able to return safely or fast enough if you chose to help him, wouldn't that make it an irrational action? It is for this reason that I wouldn't group together virtue and rational thought. They can be completely different, especially in war.
War isn't decided upon by the soldiers of a country; it is decided by the leader(s) of a country. I agree that it is courageous of soldiers to risk their lives for their country, but the means for which they are fighting might not justify their struggles. Invading kings do not have to risk their lives when they declare war on smaller nations; they are sacrificing the lives of the soldiers. I don't quite know where I'm going with this...
Hmmm...this is a very difficult question. I am having trouble coming up with a cohesive answer. It is courageous to fight in battle, there is no doubt about that. There are circumstances where it would be more brave to choose not to go to war, but if you end up going overseas and fighting you are eventually being courageous. Sometimes courage is most evident in times of stress, when decisions are made under time constraint. Some may argue that quick decision making is always rash, but I believe that intelligent decisions can be made quickly. It is actually much more difficult to make good decisions under pressure; sometimes lengthy deliberation can lead to over-thinking and thus, poor decisions. Not acting can be courageous or cowardly, depending on the situation. It is very difficult for me to define courage, becuase I still believe that there is no universal definition and that courage varies from person to person.
ReplyDeleteEmma quoted Aristotle as saying: “different things appear good to different people." This one statement is what I spend most of my time thinking about. Aristotle is always talking about the "good" or the "universal good" and so on and so forth. I just have trouble following his definition of courage as striving toward a universal good when "good" is so incredulously multi-faceted and changes from person to person. What I view as good is not going to be the same and Aristotle, or my parents, or my peers. Am I not courageous? Is courage relative as well? I'm not sure if these even answers the question, but its what I thought about while reading the text.
ReplyDelete"How for Aristotle can reason have anything to do with the pressures of battle, where one hardly has any time to chose or deliberate about the best course of action."
ReplyDeleteI think the key words in your question are "hardly has any time". In regards to this, I think even in the heat of battle, the fighter still has time to reason and think of the next move whether it be something complicated or his/her instinct (I believe that choosing to do what your instincts tell you still constitute as reasoning). Also, in the middle of a fight, let's say that you have a choice of a weapon to grab to defend yourself. Let's say the choices are a pocket knife and a handgun. You would either instinctively take the one you are more familiar with or reason out which would be more beneficial in your particular situation. In either case, you are reasoning, but just doing it at a much faster rate. War is usually thoughtfully planned out in committees that are usually within cities. Sure, one bad move or unreasonable action may destroy a city, but everything has a reason whether it be a good or malicious one.
I'm going to start off with the nature of war and its relation to the city. Actually, I'm not going to tackle the nature of war persay, but for the purposes of our discussion, I think we need to define the meaning of war to the virtuous soldier. A virtuous soldier is a man who, although he may be mistaken, honestly believes based on all the information provided him that he is going to war for the betterment of mankind. He believes that the result of this war will make the world better. In relation to the city, this means that war is about either protecting the city or using the power and glory of the city to protect others.
ReplyDeleteIf this is the case, then the virtuous soldier does not go into battle without seriously considering the actions he is going to perform, and making a virtuous choice where his reason lines up with his will and he understands the impact of war.
Once he finds himself in the midst of battle, I agree that deliberation flies out the window, but I do not consider this cowardice so much as an involuntary action (I know that this could be argued in more detail and probably never resolved). In my opinion, losing the ability to make rational choices in the midst of batle is more than excusable, and natural- it is a survival instinct and a showing of the inner animal nature of man, which makes it perhaps a showing of courage. Anyway, if we accept that losing the ability to deliberate on specific actions during battle is an excusable involuntary action, then war remains a virtue for this soldier because we are still judging him on the last voluntary rational decision he made, which was to go to war and accept all its consequences, which was a virtuous choice at the time. Thus, accepting war remains among the highest virtues and braveries.
Aristotle glorifies war and the soldiers who take part in it because that is what society told him is righteous. It shows the societal influence on the thought process. If Aristotle truly believed that good took a combination of will and deliberation, he would see that in most cases, those in war are incapable of any thought process in the heat of battle. The struggle to survive and defend the city, no matter how noble it may be, stems out of fear. This fear alone makes these rash actions courageous. It is not to say that these men are not brave, but as we have established many times, bravery does not a courageous man make.
ReplyDeleteBecause Aristotle lives in a society where war is commonly accepted and glorified, his view is skewed by his influence, and his philosophy is built on a bed of opinions created by others.