mtbturtle wrote:How did Aristotle divide it up? What virtues did he suggest?
In
Nicomachean Ethics he divides them in two categories: moral virtues and intellectual virtues. He characterizes moral virtues as a Golden Mean between two other vices, it’s like a spectrum of different behaviors; the virtuous behavior lying in a sweet spot, or "goldielock's region"
Moral virtues:(1)
Courage (to do with fear and confidence)
Excess vice = being rash/foolhardy
Deficiency vice = cowardly
(2)
Temperance /moderation (to do with pleasure and pain)
Excess vice = dissipation (an unrestrained indulgence in pleasure)
Deficiency vice = insensible (this vice is seems unclear IMO, I think what Aristotle means is taking pleasure in pain e.g. a sadist.)
(3)
Generosity (to do with spending and receiving)
Excess vice = wastefulness (giving to people without thought, e.g. giving money to a homeless person even if they might buy drugs or something)
Deficiency vice = stinginess
(4)
Magnificence (to do with spending and receiving again, but on a greater scale. I think this mostly concerns the very wealthy, but in many ways applies to everyone, it’s to do with the reasons we contribute things)
Excess vice = tastelessness (e.g. building a statue of yourself just so people look up to/worship you, as opposed to building a hospital because you genuinely want to help the sick)
Deficiency vice = paltriness (this one is rather odd, basically not being able to contribute, through fault of your own (I think), Aristotle says this vice isn’t as bad as others, as it doesn’t harm anyone)
(5)
Magnanimity/"Greatness of soul" (to do with honour and dishonour) Personally, I don't understand this one that well, and have a hard time seeing how it fits in, it's the first one he says is comprised of other virtues.
Excess vice = vanity
Deficiency vice = smallness of soul
I don't know how to explain these TBH. He describes some general characteristics of someone who has a "great soul", such as: they don't take trivial matters seriously, they don't beat around the bush, has something to do with the way they carry themselves, along with many other things. To me it seems like he's describing the type of characteristics he just personally respects and why, I dunno though.
(6)
Proper ambition (to do with lesser honour and lesser dishonour ) I'm not sure about this one either.
Excess vice = over ambitious
Deficiency vice = lack of ambition
Has a lot to do with the reasons we are ambitious, and where our ambitions are (I think), e.g. a drug dealer might be ambitious but his ambitions are not in the right places. Seems like too big a grey area for me.
(7)
Anger (to do with patience)
Excess vice = irritability (getting angry when it's not necessary/over reacting)
Deficiency vice = spiritlessness (never getting angry, even if they should be, unable to defend yourself)
He comments that this is one of the harder virtues to get right, also says anger shouldn't be on impulse, but controlled and subject to reason.
(8)
Friendliness (to do with social conduct)
Excess vices = (a)obsequiousness (being a send-out/slavish) (b)flatterer (butt-kissing)
Deficiency vice = quarrelsome/cantankerousness
(9)
Honesty about oneself (to do with truth, modesty)
Excess vice = boastfulness (big headed)
Deficiency vice = self-depreciation (too modest)
(10)
Witty or charming (to do with sense of humour)
Excess vice = buffoonery (over the top, no restraint. E.g.
MTV Jackass)
Deficiency vice = boorishness (lacking a sense of humour)
He comments that there is no rules for what's funny or not, again it's a grey area.
Intellectual virtues:(1)
Art (craftsmanship)
(2)
Knowledge (could be considered as believing in empirical evidence, I think)
(3)
Practical judgement (having sound judgement from an over-all perspective)
(4)
Intellect (using sound reason)
(5)
Wisdom (I think Aristotle would consider someone who uses reason and empiricism a lot as wise. Like, if you study a subject, and use these skills in it a lot, the over-all product of what you have learned would be considered wisdom. For instance: if a biologist was explaining natural selection in a way that anyone could understand, that would be them sharing wisdom)