tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post6628935219034706376..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: What is Virtue?Richard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1698450653849210012009-09-05T01:30:50.878-04:002009-09-05T01:30:50.878-04:00[Aside (@jawats): it's worth reflecting for a ...[Aside (@jawats): it's worth reflecting for a moment on whether you would have used a non-academic title like 'Mr.' had the philosopher's name instead been 'Julian'. Perhaps you're one of the few who would. Even so, I'd recommend against referring to female academics as 'Ms.', given the ease with which it could be interpreted as (even unintentionally) slighting their academic credentials.]Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-831434352941530942009-09-03T16:02:14.013-04:002009-09-03T16:02:14.013-04:00It seems to me that Ms. Driver's definition is...It seems to me that Ms. Driver's definition is something closer to the <i>virtu</i> described by Machiavelli - from the SEP:<br /><br />"In particular, Machiavelli employs the concept of virtù to refer to the range of personal qualities that the prince will find it necessary to acquire in order to “maintain his state” and to “achieve great things,” the two standard markers of power for him. This makes it brutally clear there can be no equivalence between the conventional virtues and Machiavellian virtù."Sardonicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09614057543947120116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-30610147891383948832009-09-03T15:48:39.676-04:002009-09-03T15:48:39.676-04:00That's fair, I was apparently a little too hyp...That's fair, I was apparently a little too hyped up in my initial reaction to the headline, and the body of the post, to notice the extent to which you were simply seeking to define virtue rhetorically as a contrast to Driver's definition. Mea Culpa.Nemohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07893001639861896976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-21624046230651440312009-09-03T15:35:45.757-04:002009-09-03T15:35:45.757-04:00That's just my first proposal: virtues are the...That's just my first proposal: virtues are the intrinsically good character traits, whatever those might be.<br /><br />But this clearly isn't what Driver means by 'virtue' when she argues that virtues are the <i>instrumentally</i> good traits. She doesn't think that instrumentally good traits are (also) intrinsically good. So I wonder if there's something else she might mean.Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-3363042895184488512009-09-03T14:06:39.957-04:002009-09-03T14:06:39.957-04:00I don't have my Plato in front of me, so I can...I don't have my Plato in front of me, so I can't recall the dialogue (Meno, maybe?), but it seems humorous, to such an extent that I hope that it's intentional on your part, to go through an entire post asking what "virtue" is (and using that precise term) without even mentioning Plato at all. It's pretty clear to me that a "virtue" is any quality, trait, disposition, etc. that we regard as "good" regardless of its outcome.<br /><br />This, of course, leads us to ask what "good" is, and we're off to the races with the western philosophy for the following 2,000 years or so...Nemohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07893001639861896976noreply@blogger.com