Plato and Aristotle were Greek philosophers respected for their ideas and opinions. Among the things they discussed is virtue.
According to Plato, virtue cannot really be defined. He states that virtue is a form of, in its own way, knowledge. Knowledge in itself is paradoxical in that, where matters of our human nature as well as functions, it seems inherently impossible to answer any of our fundamental questions. He argues that one cannot learn virtue; one either knows and therefore doesn’t require looking or doesn’t know and therefore cannot recognize anything even if one found it (Peterson & Seligman, 2004).
Plato identifies true opinion as the basis of virtue. We have all sometimes had a realization of a certain aspect and most times it feels as though it isn’t something new we’re discovering but rather something that we’re remembering. This supports Plato’s theory that remembrance or recollection is possibly the source of our opinions about the most important characteristics of reality; hence recollection is the basis of true opinion.
Aristotle, on the other hand, had a definition for virtue. For him, every human being has their own character. Character emerges from a person’s habits, which are repeated kinds of activities. A virtue, therefore, can be defined as a form of character. He argues that the human soul is partitioned into three parts; the part that controls, the part that’s supposed to be controlled (this includes passions and desires) by reason and the part that cannot respond to reason (bodily functions such as digestion).
If a person intends to be virtuous, he cannot act according to his desires. This would lead him to act selfishly since he would be acting on for his own benefit. Virtuous actions convey reason and a virtuous person derives joy from his actions (Peterson & Seligman, 2004).
In accordance with Nicomachean ethics, virtues are sort of an in between. For instance too much confidence results in pride and fear for nothing while too little confidence results in cowardice fear of everything. This is usually mostly the case where moral virtues are concerned.
There are two types of virtues; intellectual virtues and moral virtues. Intellectual virtues are formed or affected on by where we grow up and our environment while moral virtues are affected by whatever habits we have formed. Therefore the difference between intellectual virtues and moral virtues is that intellectual virtues are natural, we are born with them while moral virtues are acquired (Peterson & Seligman, 2004).
The point of scrutinizing virtues is not to understand the meaning of virtue, because that is of no use but to know what is good and what is not and apply this knowledge in our day to day lives.
The difference between virtues and skills according to Aristotle is that a virtue is not so much concerned with the end product but with the intention with which an action was carried out and the way in which it was done.
Plato, in Meno, attempts to answer the question can virtue be taught. To some extent, virtue comes off as some sort of wisdom that we can acquire through education. On the hand, if virtue was something that could be taught, then we would be able to identify those who can teach it. We cannot easily do that which therefore challenges that point.
Plato later came to disagree with his teacher Socrates that knowledge of virtue can be obtained through the right application of education (Peterson & Seligman, 2004).
References:
Peterson C. & Seligman M. E. P (2004). Character Strength and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification. Oxford University Press.
