Stochastique Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Hi guys, A question that has been bothering me lately is: why do we sometimes use objective truth (science, logic) to acquire knowledge but yet sometimes we are comfortable using the Aristotelian mean as a way to answer a question? Why is virtue treated separately from, let's say, ethics (objectivity) or aesthetics (subjectivity)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Mister Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 the Aristotelian mean applies to certain qualities that are beyond the scope of true/false, right/wrong in philosophy. It is more akin to aesthetics than ethics. For example, a particular song could be too fast or too slow to achieve the right effect, but there's no objective means to determine what is the perfect speed for every song. Similarly, Aristotle points out cowards who never get angry, and crazy people who get angry too easily, but there's no perfect way to say when you should get angry, how angry should you be, how to express it, and so on. That's my crude understanding of it, hope that makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csekavec Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 So far as I'm aware there is no virtue that cannot be expressed as a mean. Also recall the context. Aristotle devised the mean as a way of saying, "I can't write down every circumstance. Instead I'll write the most relevant things for my time, and put forth the general case of how to find what is virtuous. I'll call this method choosing the mean." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stochastique Posted April 2, 2016 Author Share Posted April 2, 2016 Thanks for your answers, makes total sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts