/lit/ - Literature

>>20587141
>So we cannot have virtue in degrees?
Virtue is, in its essence, reason and hence self-sufficiency and is inseparable from eudaimonia and ataraxia, it is blessedness itself. It is as an object is either straight or it is not, 'virtue' is a platonic measure, you can be closer to it than others, but virtue itself does not admit of degrees

>If for a second we act, then for a second virtuous?
If it were possible to cultivate virtue witin yourself for just a second, then to forget virtue, then yes, (because, as spoken of before, 'act' as language has misleading implications, virtue is not a single act of goodness, like downvoting a hecking racist on reddit is, or if you want to separate it act-by-act, it is an infinite number of small acts that make up living virtuously, like droplets of water in a wave)

>Or does the attainment of virtue forgo and follow the act, that a virtuous man might not have acted, or might have concluded his action?
If one is virtuous (as possessing virtue), they will inescapably be acting virtously at all times to the point that 'acting virtuously' and 'being virtuous' are inseparably the same, even a life sitting in complete, self-fulfilled silence, would such be an act of virtue