Virtue comes from somewhere besides teachers.
>if virtue was knowledge, it could be taught
>a virtuous man would teach virtue to his sons if he could teach it
>virtuous men do not always have virtuous sons
>therefore virtue is not knowledge
This is cool because if virtue leads to happiness, that means the source of happiness is not a teacher, but something else; Socrates suggests it to be some kind of god.
Justice is about a proper ordering of the soul, with reason in control of the spirit and the appetite. Therefore, to be just is to be rightly ordered as a person, and to have the thing that most makes you human be the thing inside you that's strongest.
Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play.
- Kant
Definitely get wrapped up in just thinking about and reading stuff and forget that I need to get out and actually *do* things. I would even argue that theoria and praxis aren't just complementary - you actually can't have theory without practice even if theory can make your praxis better. Simple, but so easy to overlook.
Lmao that argument is flawed af. Virtue is knowledge and will my dude.
you gotta be clearer than that if you want to seem cool
1. Belief is inherently irrational. It can't be reconciled with rationality. This has helped me in understanding the world and how people (including me) function.
2. Stoicism taught me to adapt the best mindset for achieving my goals. This has allowed me to attain a mindset and a fire that I can utilize towards competitiveness.
3. Formal logic has taught me a lot about the heuristical traps the human minds has and how the intuitive answer isn't always correct.
What if his son is dumb as fuck and doesn't get it? The argument assumes perfect transfer of knowledge, which isn't guaranteed. It's an unstated axiom of the argument, and one I doubt anyone would agree with.
Virtue is knowledge combined with the will to act virtuously. I know Socrates would disagree with me, saying that if you truly had that knowledge you would have the will, but I don't think he ever sufficiently demonstrates it.
>>Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play.
this is what undergraduate rationalists believe
The word virtue comes from Latin vir, which means man, thusly virtue actually means masculinity, and we all know that masculinity is dead.
>What if his son is dumb as fuck and doesn't get it?
sounds as though in order to have virtue, you have to have what you call intelligence, which can't be taught
do you mean religious belief?
The Bible is a series of books written, edited and assembled over thousands of years. It contains the most influential stories of mankind. Knowledge of those stories is essential to a deep understanding of Western culture, which is in turn vital to proper psychological health (as human beings are cultural animals) and societal stability. These stories are neither history, as we commonly conceive it, nor empirical science. Instead, they are investigations into the structure of Being itself and calls to action within that Being. They have deep psychological significance.
Not only but yes
That would be one issue, but it's not the end of it. What if his father is a bad teacher? And before you say being a good teacher is included in virtue, he may be virtuous in some aspects, e.g. courage, meaning we would expect it to be able to be taught, but his inability to teach hinders that.
It's simply what I said before, an imperfect transferal of knowledge. It can take many forms, two of which I've mentioned, but I'm sure you could think of examples yourself.
>What if his father is a bad teacher?
virtuous men who are good teachers don't necessarily have virtuous sons, either.
socrates gives the example of a virtuous, eminent guy named thucydides who teaches his sons to wrestle exceedingly well, so that they are the best wrestlers in athens, yet he could not teach them to be virtuous.
so on the whole, a virtuous man can be good at teaching and if his son lacks the root or material for virtue, teaching him it is impossible.
Meaninglessness creates the space for meaning to exist. It might seem sophomoric but it established a groundwork to guide myself through an existential crisis and an edgy nihilistic phase. Metaphysical Horror is a good read.
Is this analogous to a blank canvas being a requirement for a painting?
I suppose so. It also helped me realize that definite inherent meaning would be a totalitarian nightmare that denies you agency.
Virtue can be taught, but virtue=/=ability to teach others. I was able to learn virtue from certain individuals, in my life, from books and from faith.
Wrestling and virtue are different things, taught in different ways.
>reads playdough once
Can you back any of your bullshit claims?
>Belief is inherently irrational. It can't be reconciled with rationality.
You're probably using 'belief' in an odd way here, but what do you mean it cannot be reconciled with rationality? I can get behind the idea that all beliefs and positions held by a person are irrevocably influenced by emotions and ideology. But how is rationality even possible then if that relationship isn't compatible? Surely my belief in, say, A=A or the proposition "science aims to and succeeds in positing theories that are literally true accounts of how the world actually is" are (or rather can be) rational.
Unless I am misunderstanding and stretching beyond what you mean exactly by "can't be reconciled" or, like I said, by 'belief.'
That doesn't mean his original argument was any good. I'm simply giving examples of counter-cases to the original argument.
He probably means either one of two things, both are which are interconnected.
First, all rationale is based on unproven assumptions.
Second, some of those assumptions, e.g. belief in God, are more explicitly classified as beliefs since they are an unproven assumption.
its in the meno if thats whats ur asking
>Wrestling and virtue are different things, taught in different ways.
u gotta back ur claims my friend
nice
Philosophy is useless.
>carpenters do not always have carpenter sons
>therefore carpentry is not knowledge
Does he really have to back his claim that a good wrestling coach won't necessarily teach virtue well?
If you bring rationality into "it", it ceases to be a belief and starts to be knowledge, either true or false knowledge.
>First, all rationale is based on unproven assumptions.
How is that incorrect? All of rationality is still affected by the Munchausen Trilemma. I haven't put too much thought into this, but there might be the sole exception of the cogito, but I'm not sure.