/lit/ - Literature

>>11326791

I am pretty terrible at being virtuous desu. The most virtue I can exhibit is to not fuck up too bad.

I'm reading Nicomachean Ethics right now and after penetrating the density of Aristotle's syntax, I fucking love it.
Aristotle's genuine logic and ability to synthesize information from various fields into compelling arguments makes his the most complete philosophy I've read.

cause i'm balding nigga

>>11326791
because there is no such thing as a being to be virtuous or virtues or definite states and its a hilarious way of setting up a fascist regime within yourself. just the idea of a will or choice is grounds to burn a philosopher’s works
>>11326854
t. sub 120 iq zoo animal

>>11326902
t. Self-affected relativist

>>11326902
>he got tricked into forgetting classical wisdom because the enlightenment wrongly rejected it, failed to ground itself properly, and then led its followers into a blind alley of despair and meaninglessness through its own failure

Must suck to be you bruh.

>>11326903
no have been this way since 5 years old and also have a higher iq than you
>>11326951
there is no classical wisdom, Heidegger and Nietzsche consumed all of in their first few works. It was linguistic sperging. Heraclitus and Pyrrho both saw through it as did Buddha, Laozi and the pre-Vedic Aryans (the founders of mahayana buddhism, and the main influence behind the shamanism that spawned daosim, see:tarim basin culture). Aryan thought is process oriented, being is an ideal of sessile peoples

>>11326962
>muh NEET-she
Life imitating art, memes becoming reality

>>11326791
What does it mean to be virtuous?

>>11327021
might as well ask what does it mean to be good

>>11326791
Touche, OP

>>11326791
>thinking contemplation isn't the highest virtue

>>11327153
constant contemplation is an impossible ideal though

>>11327159
The ideal man only ceases contemplation periodically to eat food brought to him by his slaves and to have passionless rational sex with his wife.

>>11327183
The ideal man is by Aristotle's own admission a pipe dream

Because I'm not bound to an ideal.

>>11327384
Virtuous behavior isn't an impossible ideal though

>>11326902
>Doesn't understand virtue
>Doesn't understand what "fascism" means
>Does not see anything in Nicomachean Ethics
The saddest part is that I don't think this is even bait.

>>11327119
I’m serious. What does it mean?

>>11327450
It actually bassically means being good. If you subscribe to virtue ethics, then to be good or virtuous is to follow the virtues. The problem that arises is that each group has constructed their own set if virtues, and at least almost all of them are wrong. The only set I can think of off of the top of my head is the stoics, which is courage, justice, wisdom, and some other one I cannot remember.

>>11326794
fucking up is a stepping stone to self-improvement which amounts a virtuous act

>>11327484
The humility required to learn from a mistake is virtuous, the mistake is not virtuous of itself.

>>11327450
unironically anything you want

>>11326962
Hhhhhhahah

>>11327512
nice

>>11326962
>it was linguistic sperging
>being this much of a fucking pseud

Pls

>>11327523
Being "good" could be so loosely defined this way, but "virtue" denotes the follower of virtue ethics, and thus must be something concrete. It is still loosely defined, as every virtue ethics group may come to different virtues as conclusions, but the answer should still be specific enough as to elude that they should be following whatever path they have decided on.

>>11327529
Thank you.

These virtue threads were better when they starting off by invoking Mac In Tire.

>>11328675
I agree. Virtue ethics is one of my favorite topics. This was my personal favorite thread:
>>/lit/thread/S11193487

>>11327570
>as every virtue ethics group may come to different virtues as conclusions
>virtue is something concrete defiened by a group
>the group decides whatever it wants to be virtuous
>there by is no different in essence that anything you want is virtuous or good
and yes, i'm aware that the average scumbag has shit judgement but you the get the point

>>11329003
Ideally they should not "decide" what is virtuous, but seek out the truth. Virtue ethics exists as the idea that there is SOME ultimate right, ergo the virtues. If this is the belief, then the natural path for a subscriber to take is to attempt to seek out the virtues. As you have pointed out, there is a problem when multiple groups come to differing opinions, but it is no different under any other ethical framework. What makes it by nature virtue though is believing in the concrete right itself, even if there is no consensus of what are the virtues.

>>11328747
I'm guessing it is the 15 day plus Mac thread? If so, that was golden and someone just needs to make a thread that continues from where that one left off.

>tfw finished Book 2 of Nicomachean Ethics

>>11329245
You're correct. I plan on starting it back up with all the books suggested by committee within the op. It's a rather long list but I would like some discussion on virtue ethics and any arguments surrounding it.

Where do I go from Aristotle once I've consumed the Ethics and Politics? Machiavelli?

>>11329320
Epicurus, then the Romans, then machiavelli is fine.

>>11329327
Not really interested in Epicureanism tbqh

>>11329334
Me neither but some things are usful to know. Anyway, skipping Epicurus should be fine, just jump into the "Resume with the Romans" chart, or just grab some Cicero or Aurelius

>>11329343
Cool. Intended to pick up Meditations for a while after tackling Epictetus.
Haven't found an "in" on the Romans yet, I have a selected anthology of Plutarch's biographies but I'm pretty much dead in the water trying to read those without solid context.

>>11329355

>>11329355
Also this

>>11329334
don't skip epicureanism

>>11329413
Meant to post this

>>11329429
I've read SPQR and would probably re-read it for more fresh background information, but does Rubicon offer a closer analysis of Imperial Rome?

>>11329452
Haven't read either of those tbqh so I don't know. Sorry.

>>11329307
Good work bucko. Any idea when you'll have the thread up? I'll contribute when I can man.

>>11329481
I was going to wait a while, but I can probably have it up Monday or Tuesday or so. I was planning on putting some work into it and writing up an actual reading list, so it may take me a while, beyond just generally being busy over the weekend. I'll see how early I can post, though.

>>11329003
>>the group decides whatever it wants to be virtuous
No. The group either uses reason to recognise the virtues by understanding what qualities of action enable a human being to fulfil his distinctively human telos, or they fail at moral reasoning.

This emotivist thesis where everybody comes up with their own ethics and they are all equally worthy of respect is just a perverted by-product of the Enlightenment project - which removed the idea of a telos from practical reasoning without realising that they thereby removed any hopes of rationally grounding morality.

>>11329003
this is a non-specific criticism that could apply to anything. replace "virtue ethics" with "morality" or "objective truth" to see that it's basically a roundabout way of saying "different people have reached different conclusions about X therefore X is subjective"

>>11330359
Well put