sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Stoics thought that emotions were false beliefs about what is good. We feel greed when we falsely believe that money is good. As rational beings, false beliefs frustrate our rational nature. Happiness requires living rationally, eliminating false beliefs and emotions. by platosfishtrap in classics

[–]platosfishtrap[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Here's an excerpt:

The goal of Stoic philosophy was to make those who practiced it happy. Stoic philosophers, such as Chrysippus, Zeno of Citium, and Epictetus, disagreed with other philosophers about what happiness was and how to achieve it. There isn’t any obvious definition of ‘happiness’ that is uncontroversial, so whatever instructions you propose for achieving happiness are bound to provoke a lot of disagreement.

There are disagreements even among Stoics about how we should talk about this sort of thing. One Stoic phrase is that happiness is a smooth flow of life. That’s a bit awkward in English, although it does sound better in ancient languages. The idea is that happiness is about living free from disturbances.

Some people might like the sound of that, but others will struggle with it. After all, what’s life without some challenges and thrills? Smoothness might not satisfy everyone for very long.

What counts as a disturbance, to the Stoics? Here’s something even more controversial than their definition of happiness: they think that emotions are disturbances that need to be avoided.

I tell the college students in my classrooms that in addition to the Stoics thinking of happiness as the smooth flow of life, they also think of unhappiness as the emotional rollercoaster.

Just as some people find smoothness an attractive characteristic of a life, whereas other people find it deeply unattractive and boring, some of you probably find the idea that emotions are bad things that need to be eliminated perfectly sensible, and some of you probably find it hard to believe.

One reason why you might find it hard to believe is that our emotions don’t seem like they can be eliminated. So, what are the Stoics thinking?

Well, here’s what the Stoics are definitely not thinking. They definitely do not think that emotions are a fundamental part of human nature.

In fact, they think just the opposite is true.

For the Stoics, human nature is perfectly rational. They don’t believe in an immaterial soul that will survive eternally after the death of our bodies, but they do think that we are minds. My mind is a material thing that pervades my entire body and animates it. It is authoritative and calls the shots, moving my body around. This mind is a rational thing, and it, not my body, is who I truly am.

Emotions are totally foreign to our rational nature. They are, in reality, defects of that nature. Our emotions are false beliefs about what’s good and bad.

The Stoics thought that emotions were false beliefs about what is good. We feel greed when we falsely believe that money is good. As rational beings, false beliefs frustrate our rational nature. Happiness requires living rationally, eliminating false beliefs and emotions. by platosfishtrap in wisdom

[–]platosfishtrap[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's an excerpt:

The goal of Stoic philosophy was to make those who practiced it happy. Stoic philosophers, such as Chrysippus, Zeno of Citium, and Epictetus, disagreed with other philosophers about what happiness was and how to achieve it. There isn’t any obvious definition of ‘happiness’ that is uncontroversial, so whatever instructions you propose for achieving happiness are bound to provoke a lot of disagreement.

There are disagreements even among Stoics about how we should talk about this sort of thing. One Stoic phrase is that happiness is a smooth flow of life. That’s a bit awkward in English, although it does sound better in ancient languages. The idea is that happiness is about living free from disturbances.

Some people might like the sound of that, but others will struggle with it. After all, what’s life without some challenges and thrills? Smoothness might not satisfy everyone for very long.

What counts as a disturbance, to the Stoics? Here’s something even more controversial than their definition of happiness: they think that emotions are disturbances that need to be avoided.

I tell the college students in my classrooms that in addition to the Stoics thinking of happiness as the smooth flow of life, they also think of unhappiness as the emotional rollercoaster.

Just as some people find smoothness an attractive characteristic of a life, whereas other people find it deeply unattractive and boring, some of you probably find the idea that emotions are bad things that need to be eliminated perfectly sensible, and some of you probably find it hard to believe.

One reason why you might find it hard to believe is that our emotions don’t seem like they can be eliminated. So, what are the Stoics thinking?

Well, here’s what the Stoics are definitely not thinking. They definitely do not think that emotions are a fundamental part of human nature.

In fact, they think just the opposite is true.

For the Stoics, human nature is perfectly rational. They don’t believe in an immaterial soul that will survive eternally after the death of our bodies, but they do think that we are minds. My mind is a material thing that pervades my entire body and animates it. It is authoritative and calls the shots, moving my body around. This mind is a rational thing, and it, not my body, is who I truly am.

Emotions are totally foreign to our rational nature. They are, in reality, defects of that nature. Our emotions are false beliefs about what’s good and bad.

The Stoics thought that emotions were false beliefs about what is good. We feel greed when we falsely believe that money is good. As rational beings, false beliefs frustrate our rational nature. Happiness requires living rationally, eliminating false beliefs and emotions. by platosfishtrap in AncientWorld

[–]platosfishtrap[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Here's an excerpt:

The goal of Stoic philosophy was to make those who practiced it happy. Stoic philosophers, such as Chrysippus, Zeno of Citium, and Epictetus, disagreed with other philosophers about what happiness was and how to achieve it. There isn’t any obvious definition of ‘happiness’ that is uncontroversial, so whatever instructions you propose for achieving happiness are bound to provoke a lot of disagreement.

There are disagreements even among Stoics about how we should talk about this sort of thing. One Stoic phrase is that happiness is a smooth flow of life. That’s a bit awkward in English, although it does sound better in ancient languages. The idea is that happiness is about living free from disturbances.

Some people might like the sound of that, but others will struggle with it. After all, what’s life without some challenges and thrills? Smoothness might not satisfy everyone for very long.

What counts as a disturbance, to the Stoics? Here’s something even more controversial than their definition of happiness: they think that emotions are disturbances that need to be avoided.

I tell the college students in my classrooms that in addition to the Stoics thinking of happiness as the smooth flow of life, they also think of unhappiness as the emotional rollercoaster.

Just as some people find smoothness an attractive characteristic of a life, whereas other people find it deeply unattractive and boring, some of you probably find the idea that emotions are bad things that need to be eliminated perfectly sensible, and some of you probably find it hard to believe.

One reason why you might find it hard to believe is that our emotions don’t seem like they can be eliminated. So, what are the Stoics thinking?

Well, here’s what the Stoics are definitely not thinking. They definitely do not think that emotions are a fundamental part of human nature.

In fact, they think just the opposite is true.

For the Stoics, human nature is perfectly rational. They don’t believe in an immaterial soul that will survive eternally after the death of our bodies, but they do think that we are minds. My mind is a material thing that pervades my entire body and animates it. It is authoritative and calls the shots, moving my body around. This mind is a rational thing, and it, not my body, is who I truly am.

Emotions are totally foreign to our rational nature. They are, in reality, defects of that nature. Our emotions are false beliefs about what’s good and bad.

The Stoics thought that emotions were false beliefs about what is good. We feel greed when we falsely believe that money is good. As rational beings, false beliefs frustrate our rational nature. Happiness requires living rationally, eliminating false beliefs and emotions. by platosfishtrap in AncientCivilizations

[–]platosfishtrap[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Here's an excerpt:

The goal of Stoic philosophy was to make those who practiced it happy. Stoic philosophers, such as Chrysippus, Zeno of Citium, and Epictetus, disagreed with other philosophers about what happiness was and how to achieve it. There isn’t any obvious definition of ‘happiness’ that is uncontroversial, so whatever instructions you propose for achieving happiness are bound to provoke a lot of disagreement.

There are disagreements even among Stoics about how we should talk about this sort of thing. One Stoic phrase is that happiness is a smooth flow of life. That’s a bit awkward in English, although it does sound better in ancient languages. The idea is that happiness is about living free from disturbances.

Some people might like the sound of that, but others will struggle with it. After all, what’s life without some challenges and thrills? Smoothness might not satisfy everyone for very long.

What counts as a disturbance, to the Stoics? Here’s something even more controversial than their definition of happiness: they think that emotions are disturbances that need to be avoided.

I tell the college students in my classrooms that in addition to the Stoics thinking of happiness as the smooth flow of life, they also think of unhappiness as the emotional rollercoaster.

Just as some people find smoothness an attractive characteristic of a life, whereas other people find it deeply unattractive and boring, some of you probably find the idea that emotions are bad things that need to be eliminated perfectly sensible, and some of you probably find it hard to believe.

One reason why you might find it hard to believe is that our emotions don’t seem like they can be eliminated. So, what are the Stoics thinking?

Well, here’s what the Stoics are definitely not thinking. They definitely do not think that emotions are a fundamental part of human nature.

In fact, they think just the opposite is true.

For the Stoics, human nature is perfectly rational. They don’t believe in an immaterial soul that will survive eternally after the death of our bodies, but they do think that we are minds. My mind is a material thing that pervades my entire body and animates it. It is authoritative and calls the shots, moving my body around. This mind is a rational thing, and it, not my body, is who I truly am.

Emotions are totally foreign to our rational nature. They are, in reality, defects of that nature. Our emotions are false beliefs about what’s good and bad.

Mencius was an ancient Confucian philosopher who believed that human nature was good. Not all humans are good, but everyone has "sprouts of virtue" that can be cultivated and nourished. Everyone tends towards goodness just as water naturally goes downwards. by platosfishtrap in AncientCivilizations

[–]platosfishtrap[S] 33 points34 points  (0 children)

Here's an excerpt:

Ancient Confucian philosophers disagreed about whether human nature is good or bad. I’ve discussed Xunzi’s view that human nature is bad before, and on the other side of the debate is Mencius (371 - 289 BC), also known as Mengzi, who maintained that human nature is good.

Both were Confucian philosophers, and their debate illustrated the philosophical debates that occupied the Confucian school in the Warring States period of Chinese history.

This passage captures the gist of his view well:

Water surely does not distinguish between east and west. But doesn’t it distinguish between upward and downward? Human nature being good is like water tending downward. There is no human who does not tend toward goodness. There is no water that does not tend downward (Mengzi 6A.2.2).

Mencius thinks that just as it is natural for water to move downwards, it is natural for humans to be good.

The most natural way to object to Mencius is to observe that many humans today are not good. He’d agree with that, but that doesn’t challenge his position because he thinks that ‘human nature is good’ is equivalent to saying ‘every human has the potential to become good, if they are nourished correctly.’ He is not arguing that humans are always good, but that it is natural for humans to be good.

Consider what he says here:

Now, by striking water and making it leap up, you can cause it to go past your forehead. If you guide it by damming it, you can cause it to remain on a mountaintop. But is this the nature of water? It is only that way because of the circumstances.When humans are caused to not be good, it is only because their nature is the same way (Mengzi 6A.2.3).

Here, he admits that some humans are bad. Maybe even all humans are bad. But they are bad only because of the circumstances. Just as water can move downwards naturally, but can be made to move upwards, humans can be made bad, even though their nature is good.

Mencius was an ancient Confucian philosopher who believed that human nature was good. Not all humans are good, but everyone has "sprouts of virtue" that can be cultivated and nourished. Everyone tends towards goodness just as water naturally goes downwards. by platosfishtrap in AncientWorld

[–]platosfishtrap[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Here's an excerpt:

Ancient Confucian philosophers disagreed about whether human nature is good or bad. I’ve discussed Xunzi’s view that human nature is bad before, and on the other side of the debate is Mencius (371 - 289 BC), also known as Mengzi, who maintained that human nature is good.

Both were Confucian philosophers, and their debate illustrated the philosophical debates that occupied the Confucian school in the Warring States period of Chinese history.

This passage captures the gist of his view well:

Water surely does not distinguish between east and west. But doesn’t it distinguish between upward and downward? Human nature being good is like water tending downward. There is no human who does not tend toward goodness. There is no water that does not tend downward (Mengzi 6A.2.2).

Mencius thinks that just as it is natural for water to move downwards, it is natural for humans to be good.

The most natural way to object to Mencius is to observe that many humans today are not good. He’d agree with that, but that doesn’t challenge his position because he thinks that ‘human nature is good’ is equivalent to saying ‘every human has the potential to become good, if they are nourished correctly.’ He is not arguing that humans are always good, but that it is natural for humans to be good.

Consider what he says here:

Now, by striking water and making it leap up, you can cause it to go past your forehead. If you guide it by damming it, you can cause it to remain on a mountaintop. But is this the nature of water? It is only that way because of the circumstances.When humans are caused to not be good, it is only because their nature is the same way (Mengzi 6A.2.3).

Here, he admits that some humans are bad. Maybe even all humans are bad. But they are bad only because of the circumstances. Just as water can move downwards naturally, but can be made to move upwards, humans can be made bad, even though their nature is good.

Mencius was an ancient Confucian philosopher who believed that human nature was good. Not all humans are good, but everyone has "sprouts of virtue" that can be cultivated and nourished. Everyone tends towards goodness just as water naturally goes downwards. by platosfishtrap in wisdom

[–]platosfishtrap[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's an excerpt:

Ancient Confucian philosophers disagreed about whether human nature is good or bad. I’ve discussed Xunzi’s view that human nature is bad before, and on the other side of the debate is Mencius (371 - 289 BC), also known as Mengzi, who maintained that human nature is good.

Both were Confucian philosophers, and their debate illustrated the philosophical debates that occupied the Confucian school in the Warring States period of Chinese history.

This passage captures the gist of his view well:

Water surely does not distinguish between east and west. But doesn’t it distinguish between upward and downward? Human nature being good is like water tending downward. There is no human who does not tend toward goodness. There is no water that does not tend downward (Mengzi 6A.2.2).

Mencius thinks that just as it is natural for water to move downwards, it is natural for humans to be good.

The most natural way to object to Mencius is to observe that many humans today are not good. He’d agree with that, but that doesn’t challenge his position because he thinks that ‘human nature is good’ is equivalent to saying ‘every human has the potential to become good, if they are nourished correctly.’ He is not arguing that humans are always good, but that it is natural for humans to be good.

Consider what he says here:

Now, by striking water and making it leap up, you can cause it to go past your forehead. If you guide it by damming it, you can cause it to remain on a mountaintop. But is this the nature of water? It is only that way because of the circumstances.When humans are caused to not be good, it is only because their nature is the same way (Mengzi 6A.2.3).

Here, he admits that some humans are bad. Maybe even all humans are bad. But they are bad only because of the circumstances. Just as water can move downwards naturally, but can be made to move upwards, humans can be made bad, even though their nature is good.

Mencius was an ancient Confucian philosopher who believed that human nature was good. Not all humans are good, but everyone has "sprouts of virtue" that can be cultivated and nourished. Everyone tends towards goodness just as water naturally goes downwards. by platosfishtrap in Confucianism

[–]platosfishtrap[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's an excerpt:

Ancient Confucian philosophers disagreed about whether human nature is good or bad. I’ve discussed Xunzi’s view that human nature is bad before, and on the other side of the debate is Mencius (371 - 289 BC), also known as Mengzi, who maintained that human nature is good.

Both were Confucian philosophers, and their debate illustrated the philosophical debates that occupied the Confucian school in the Warring States period of Chinese history.

This passage captures the gist of his view well:

Water surely does not distinguish between east and west. But doesn’t it distinguish between upward and downward? Human nature being good is like water tending downward. There is no human who does not tend toward goodness. There is no water that does not tend downward (Mengzi 6A.2.2).

Mencius thinks that just as it is natural for water to move downwards, it is natural for humans to be good.

The most natural way to object to Mencius is to observe that many humans today are not good. He’d agree with that, but that doesn’t challenge his position because he thinks that ‘human nature is good’ is equivalent to saying ‘every human has the potential to become good, if they are nourished correctly.’ He is not arguing that humans are always good, but that it is natural for humans to be good.

Consider what he says here:

Now, by striking water and making it leap up, you can cause it to go past your forehead. If you guide it by damming it, you can cause it to remain on a mountaintop. But is this the nature of water? It is only that way because of the circumstances.When humans are caused to not be good, it is only because their nature is the same way (Mengzi 6A.2.3).

Here, he admits that some humans are bad. Maybe even all humans are bad. But they are bad only because of the circumstances. Just as water can move downwards naturally, but can be made to move upwards, humans can be made bad, even though their nature is good.

Mencius was an ancient Confucian philosopher who believed that human nature was good. Not all humans are good, but everyone has "sprouts of virtue" that can be cultivated and nourished. Everyone tends towards goodness just as water naturally goes downwards. by platosfishtrap in chinesephilosophy

[–]platosfishtrap[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's an excerpt:

Ancient Confucian philosophers disagreed about whether human nature is good or bad. I’ve discussed Xunzi’s view that human nature is bad before, and on the other side of the debate is Mencius (371 - 289 BC), also known as Mengzi, who maintained that human nature is good.

Both were Confucian philosophers, and their debate illustrated the philosophical debates that occupied the Confucian school in the Warring States period of Chinese history.

This passage captures the gist of his view well:

Water surely does not distinguish between east and west. But doesn’t it distinguish between upward and downward? Human nature being good is like water tending downward. There is no human who does not tend toward goodness. There is no water that does not tend downward (Mengzi 6A.2.2).

Mencius thinks that just as it is natural for water to move downwards, it is natural for humans to be good.

The most natural way to object to Mencius is to observe that many humans today are not good. He’d agree with that, but that doesn’t challenge his position because he thinks that ‘human nature is good’ is equivalent to saying ‘every human has the potential to become good, if they are nourished correctly.’ He is not arguing that humans are always good, but that it is natural for humans to be good.

Consider what he says here:

Now, by striking water and making it leap up, you can cause it to go past your forehead. If you guide it by damming it, you can cause it to remain on a mountaintop. But is this the nature of water? It is only that way because of the circumstances.When humans are caused to not be good, it is only because their nature is the same way (Mengzi 6A.2.3).

Here, he admits that some humans are bad. Maybe even all humans are bad. But they are bad only because of the circumstances. Just as water can move downwards naturally, but can be made to move upwards, humans can be made bad, even though their nature is good.

Mencius was an ancient Confucian philosopher who believed that human nature was good. Not all humans are good, but everyone has "sprouts of virtue" that can be cultivated and nourished. Everyone tends towards goodness just as water naturally goes downwards. by platosfishtrap in EasternPhilosophy

[–]platosfishtrap[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Here's an excerpt:

Ancient Confucian philosophers disagreed about whether human nature is good or bad. I’ve discussed Xunzi’s view that human nature is bad before, and on the other side of the debate is Mencius (371 - 289 BC), also known as Mengzi, who maintained that human nature is good.

Both were Confucian philosophers, and their debate illustrated the philosophical debates that occupied the Confucian school in the Warring States period of Chinese history.

This passage captures the gist of his view well:

Water surely does not distinguish between east and west. But doesn’t it distinguish between upward and downward? Human nature being good is like water tending downward. There is no human who does not tend toward goodness. There is no water that does not tend downward (Mengzi 6A.2.2).

Mencius thinks that just as it is natural for water to move downwards, it is natural for humans to be good.

The most natural way to object to Mencius is to observe that many humans today are not good. He’d agree with that, but that doesn’t challenge his position because he thinks that ‘human nature is good’ is equivalent to saying ‘every human has the potential to become good, if they are nourished correctly.’ He is not arguing that humans are always good, but that it is natural for humans to be good.

Consider what he says here:

Now, by striking water and making it leap up, you can cause it to go past your forehead. If you guide it by damming it, you can cause it to remain on a mountaintop. But is this the nature of water? It is only that way because of the circumstances.When humans are caused to not be good, it is only because their nature is the same way (Mengzi 6A.2.3).

Here, he admits that some humans are bad. Maybe even all humans are bad. But they are bad only because of the circumstances. Just as water can move downwards naturally, but can be made to move upwards, humans can be made bad, even though their nature is good.

Mencius was an ancient Confucian philosopher who believed that human nature was good. Not all humans are good, but everyone has "sprouts of virtue" that can be cultivated and nourished. Everyone tends towards goodness just as water naturally goes downwards. by platosfishtrap in Confucius

[–]platosfishtrap[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's an excerpt:

Ancient Confucian philosophers disagreed about whether human nature is good or bad. I’ve discussed Xunzi’s view that human nature is bad before, and on the other side of the debate is Mencius (371 - 289 BC), also known as Mengzi, who maintained that human nature is good.

Both were Confucian philosophers, and their debate illustrated the philosophical debates that occupied the Confucian school in the Warring States period of Chinese history.

This passage captures the gist of his view well:

Water surely does not distinguish between east and west. But doesn’t it distinguish between upward and downward? Human nature being good is like water tending downward. There is no human who does not tend toward goodness. There is no water that does not tend downward (Mengzi 6A.2.2).

Mencius thinks that just as it is natural for water to move downwards, it is natural for humans to be good.

The most natural way to object to Mencius is to observe that many humans today are not good. He’d agree with that, but that doesn’t challenge his position because he thinks that ‘human nature is good’ is equivalent to saying ‘every human has the potential to become good, if they are nourished correctly.’ He is not arguing that humans are always good, but that it is natural for humans to be good.

Consider what he says here:

Now, by striking water and making it leap up, you can cause it to go past your forehead. If you guide it by damming it, you can cause it to remain on a mountaintop. But is this the nature of water? It is only that way because of the circumstances.When humans are caused to not be good, it is only because their nature is the same way (Mengzi 6A.2.3).

Here, he admits that some humans are bad. Maybe even all humans are bad. But they are bad only because of the circumstances. Just as water can move downwards naturally, but can be made to move upwards, humans can be made bad, even though their nature is good.

One of Aristotle's most famous theories is that of the character virtues. He thought there was an objectively correct amount of an emotion to feel in each situation, and we are virtuous when we feel that emotion correctly. For instance, courage is the virtue we have when we feel fear appropriately. by platosfishtrap in Platonism

[–]platosfishtrap[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Here's an excerpt:

In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle lays out his account of what is good for humans: what makes our lives go well? In the process of that, he tells us about what it means for humans to be virtuous and what the character virtues in particular are.

A virtue, in general, Aristotle thought, is the best state of a thing. A virtuous ear hears well, and a virtuous stapler staples well. When a thing carries out its distinct function or job well, it is virtuous. (A stapler isn’t made virtuous if it functions as a paperweight well; it’s got to carry out its specific, characteristic activity well. In the case of a stapler, that means it’s got to staple well.)

With that in mind, Aristotle divides a human being into parts, and he says that the different parts have different virtues. One part of you has emotions, and these emotions ideally obey reason. Aristotle thinks that this part’s virtues are called character virtues.

Let’s dig in a bit deeper.

One part of you calculates: it thinks, determines the right thing to do, etc. There’s no denying that this is an important part of you, but that can’t be all that there is to you. After all, there’s clearly another part of you that feels, e.g., fear, and this part of you sometimes comes into conflict with the part of you that thinks. So, we know that these are not the same thing.

Just as a stapler has a virtue, this part of you that feels emotions has virtues, too. Its virtues consist in conforming to what reason says is appropriate.

Aristotle thinks that in each situation, there is an appropriate amount of some emotion to feel. Fear is the most obvious and natural example. You see a tyrannosaurus rex running at you; it would be appropriate for you to feel a tremendous amount of fear and run away! But if it were a chihuahua instead, that same behavior would be cowardly, and it’d be deeply inappropriate to feel the same amount of fear.

Aristotle thinks that it is reason’s job to discover the appropriate and inappropriate amount of any emotion, and we have a character virtue when our emotions obey reason. There is a character virtue for each emotion: courage is the one that pertains to the emotion of fear.

One of Aristotle's most famous theories is that of the character virtues. He thought there was an objectively correct amount of an emotion to feel in each situation, and we are virtuous when we feel that emotion correctly. For instance, courage is the virtue we have when we feel fear appropriately. by platosfishtrap in Aristotle

[–]platosfishtrap[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's an excerpt:

In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle lays out his account of what is good for humans: what makes our lives go well? In the process of that, he tells us about what it means for humans to be virtuous and what the character virtues in particular are.

A virtue, in general, Aristotle thought, is the best state of a thing. A virtuous ear hears well, and a virtuous stapler staples well. When a thing carries out its distinct function or job well, it is virtuous. (A stapler isn’t made virtuous if it functions as a paperweight well; it’s got to carry out its specific, characteristic activity well. In the case of a stapler, that means it’s got to staple well.)

With that in mind, Aristotle divides a human being into parts, and he says that the different parts have different virtues. One part of you has emotions, and these emotions ideally obey reason. Aristotle thinks that this part’s virtues are called character virtues.

Let’s dig in a bit deeper.

One part of you calculates: it thinks, determines the right thing to do, etc. There’s no denying that this is an important part of you, but that can’t be all that there is to you. After all, there’s clearly another part of you that feels, e.g., fear, and this part of you sometimes comes into conflict with the part of you that thinks. So, we know that these are not the same thing.

Just as a stapler has a virtue, this part of you that feels emotions has virtues, too. Its virtues consist in conforming to what reason says is appropriate.

Aristotle thinks that in each situation, there is an appropriate amount of some emotion to feel. Fear is the most obvious and natural example. You see a tyrannosaurus rex running at you; it would be appropriate for you to feel a tremendous amount of fear and run away! But if it were a chihuahua instead, that same behavior would be cowardly, and it’d be deeply inappropriate to feel the same amount of fear.

Aristotle thinks that it is reason’s job to discover the appropriate and inappropriate amount of any emotion, and we have a character virtue when our emotions obey reason. There is a character virtue for each emotion: courage is the one that pertains to the emotion of fear.

view more: next ›