Aristotle, Virtue of Thought (dianoêtikê aretê) and How to Live a Good Life

Philosophy 201: How might I live?

Part 9: Aristotle, Virtue of Thought (dianoêtikê aretê) and How to Live a Good Life

3Speak Intro.jpg

Introduction

We might say in our modern era we live in the ideology of science. What I mean with this is simply that our mental framework is structured to question and seek evidence in a scientific manner. In other words, our outlook on life is of the nature that we need confirmation from “science” or the scientific community to verify if something is correct or not. It is not uncommon that one hears on the street or in normal conversation “According to a new study xyz” or “Let me Google xyz and see what others have said (from the scientific community)”. When this mentality goes too far, one might fall into the trap of scientism, that is, science is treated as a religious entity to which people look up. It is important thus to distinguish the ideology of science and scientism from the get-go. Scientism is a problem I am not going to address in this post. The ideology of science, for me, is simply the notion that we without realizing it, conform our daily thoughts to that of scientific hypothesis and our worldview in some important ways conform to a scientific worldview (for example, that we would trust the peer reviewed article rather than the opinion piece in the local newspaper).

What is the connection between Aristotle, how to live a good life and the ideology of science? I use the ideology of science (or the scientific worldview) as a counterexample in order to clarify what Aristotle call the virtues of thought (dianoêtikê aretê) and how the ideology of science prohibits one from living a good life. This is a mouthful. I will explain this in two steps. Firstly, I will explain and introduce the five virtues of thought found in Aristotle’s book VI in the Nicomachean Ethics, and secondly, I will briefly explain why it would be beneficial to re-introduce one of these virtues of thought (phronesis) back into modern discourse where it is absent.

The Five Virtues of Thought

Aristotle in the sixth book of the Nicomachean Ethics, introduces five intellectual virtues, or virtues of though. The five is episteme (knowledge), nous (intelligence), sophia (wisdom), techne (craft) and phronesis (practical wisdom). These are further distinguished between things pertaining to the and things which are contingent or that which could have been different. See the image below for a further breakdown:

virtues of intellect.jpg

Simply put, these are five ways one can with reason come to the truth of things which will influence how one might achieve eudaimonia or for the lack of a better word happiness. Briefly, to explain the above image from right to left, one might gain episteme or scientific knowledge. This is simply knowledge about things as they could not have been otherwise. Blue will always be blue; water will always be water irrespective of how one perceives it. The world simply is, it consists out of things which cannot be different from what they are at the moment. When you study the world, you happen upon scientific knowledge or episteme. Nous, on the other hand, is about “first principles”. This is for example axioms in mathematics. Again, this deals with things which could not have been otherwise. Nous is different from episteme due to the former relating to first principles and the latter relating to things out there. Aristotle states that sophia (wisdom) is the combination of nous and episteme. This is simply when someone understands why things are as they are, or if someone understands nous and episteme in combination, and that culminates to the highest form of scientific or theoretical knowledge.

Moving away from the world and things (such as facts) which could not have been different, the two virtues pertaining to things which are contingent or could have been different, we find phronesis (practical wisdom) and techne (craftmanship). The latter deals with things such as the carpenter who builds or produces a bed from wood. He is actively busy with producing somethings, i.e. poiesis. The former, and for me the most important intellectual virtue, phronesis, deals with activity, i.e. phronesis. Phronesis or practical wisdom is best differentiated with scientific knowledge or theoretical wisdom with each one’s focus on the particular or the universal. For this section I rely on the medical argument as discussed by Nussbaum (2018) in her book The Therapy of Desire. Phronesis (practical wisdom) deals with the particular, and sophia (theoretical wisdom) with the universal. Nussbaum (2018:74-76) gives the example of the medical doctor with medicine and the philosophical doctor with arguments (in the Aristotelian school of thought). The medical doctor gains theoretical wisdom through his or her studies and book knowledge, and then he or she needs to apply this knowledge in the field where universals will not present. Instead, life is full of particular, individual and unique cases which has not been covered in previous studies (or books which students study). Nussbaum (2018:74), however, distinguishes between the medical doctor who give medication for the health of the patient, but the philosophical doctor/teacher administers arguments for the sake of the argument, or simply put for arguing itself. In philosophical parlance, the medical doctor used medication as a means towards some end, the philosophical doctor/teacher uses arguments as an end in itself. To conclude and summarize what has been said, I will now turn to the next section in which I give a brief reason, via Aristotle, why phronesis is more important than sophia.

How to Live a Good Life: Phronesis and our Modern Worldview

Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics (1141b5) writes:

“men like Anaxagoras and Thales ‘may be wise but are not prudent,’ when they see them display ignorance of their own interests; and while admitting them to possess a knowledge that is rare, marvellous, difficult and even superhuman, they yet declare this knowledge to be useless, because these sages do not seek to know the things that are good for human beings.”

What this passage simply says, is that it does not matter how much theoretical knowledge you gain, if you do not have phronesis or practical wisdom you will not live a good life. The reason for this is twofold. Firstly, Aristotle states that we humans cannot argue or deliberate things of the necessary kind. Things of theoretical knowledge cannot be argued on or deliberated about because it is inherently unable to be different, and we can only argue and deliberate things which could have been different. Secondly, this act of arguing and deliberating is what is needed to live a good life. It is also important for Aristotle that phronesis is about the particulars because it is the particulars which relates to our living a good life. An easy example of this is the modern scientific studies of what makes a good life. If study A tells you that xyz will help you live a good life, this will mostly be an aggregate of various factors pertaining to universals. Science does not always study the particulars for obvious reasons. Hence, following Aristotle from the above quote, and extrapolating this today’s scientific worldview, modern scientists might possess scientific or theoretical wisdom, but this does not guarantee practical wisdom, and practical wisdom is needed or is of utmost importance for living a good life. To briefly go back to Nussbaum (2018) we can state following Aristotle that we need to be able to state what it is to lead a good life in terms that we humans can actually achieve it. In other words, to give a silly example, happiness cannot be the accumulation of dust from the moon, because it is not realistic or attainable. The same can be said of scientific formulations of what a good life is: because scientists work outside of the world or particulars, they don’t necessarily work with particulars. Particulars, as we stated, are needed for phronesis, or phronesis deals with the particulars.

To bring this together, I want to conclude with the archer metaphor of Aristotle. According to Aristotle our training virtues help us focus on the target, and phronesis helps us “lock on” to the target. For this to be the case, we need to be able to deliberate and have arguments with our fellow philosophers. In the sciences, and relating to the scientific worldview, we cannot argue or deliberate things which are necessary. But to lead a good life, we need to argue and deliberate amongst each other, and this requires things in the category of contingency or “could have been different” which falls outside of the scope of theoretical wisdom.

Reference

Nussbaum, M. 2018. The Therapy of Desire. Princeton University Press

H2
H3
H4
3 columns
2 columns
1 column
2 Comments
Ecency