Brandon Beech
Final Report
Section 13
In terms of progress as a precursor to human development or achievement, this idea has taken many forms. The contemporary definition of progress is the advance or development toward a better, more complete, or more modern condition. Looking back at the earliest ancient philosophers the idea of Eudaimonia reigned supreme. Although Eudaimonia was interpreted subjectively like other ideas, the best understanding of the word we have is “flourishing,” or “excellence.”
Socrates’ saw virtue (in the modern sense) as both necessary and sufficient for Eudaimonia. He believed that without moralvirtue such as self-control, courage, justice, etc., one cannot be happy, but with virtue one cannot fail to be happy. Plato believed similarly that virtue was most important and that it is sufficient. Philosopher and Plato’s older brother Glaucon inThe Republic presented a challenge with a theoretical example of Gyges becoming King of Lydia after stumbling upon a magical ring that could make him invisible. In summary, he uses this ring’s power to kill the king, marry his wife, and take over the throne. The moral of the story and point made from Glaucon was that “If Eudaimonia is to be achieved through the satisfaction of desire (i.e. which could be argued is progress), whereas being just or acting justly requires suppression of desire, then it is not in the interest of the ‘strong’ man to act according to the dictates of conventional morality.” Plato argues that, The unjust man’s soul, without virtues, is chaotic and at war with itself, so even if he were able to satisfy most of his desires, his lack of inner harmony and unity thwart any chance at achieving Eudaimonia.
In opposition, Aristotle believed Eudaimonia was rather the activity of exhibiting excellence in accordance with reason. He believed virtue to be necessary but NOT sufficient. The ideal function of a human is the fullest or most perfect exercise of reason meaning Eudaimonia is gained by proper development of one’s highest and most human capabilities. Being a sort of tabula rasa empiricist, he asserts that achieving Eudaimonia requires activity.
Wilhelm Friedriche Hegel and Auguste Comte
How does this idea relate to that of Progress? Hegel and Auguste Comte view the development of ideas over time as the fundamental change that causes overall improvement. Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel in his work The Phenomenology of the Spirit asserts that every Era can be looked at as a kind of repository for a particular kind of wisdom and that progress is never linear. He would tell us that the world makes progress only by lunging from one extreme to another seeking to overcompensate for previous mistakes (progress is messy). He believed it generally takes 3 moves before the right balance on any issue can be found, what he called the dialektik (dialectic) which is inevitable, and we should expect it and reconcile with it. In other words, “practice makes perfect.” He also believed that important ideas can come from those you regard at first glance as beneath contempt, i.e. Similarly, Comte expressed that the gradual awareness and understanding of scientific laws is the definition of progress. For example, you cannot have Physics without Astronomy. Building on ideas to compensate for what is missing today was the ultimate premise in their views on progress.
Immanuel Kant
A quick view of the works and beliefs of Immanuel Kant helps us explore a different view on progress. Kant was a true pessimist about human nature (an idea I ultimately share) contending that all humans are naturally prone to corruption. He coined the idea Categorical Imperative in summary meaning “Do unto others as you would have done unto you.” This brings back the virtue element in the Eudaimonia philosophical concept. Kant attempted to accomplish the task religion sought to uncover, but in a secular viewpoint: Understanding how the “better,” more reasonable parts of human nature could be strengthened so as to win out over our innate weaknesses and selfishness. In terms of individual and collective progress, he helps us by posing the duty (what we must do) vs. pleasure (what we prefer to do) paradigm.
Niccolo Machiavelli
My personal favorite, Niccolo Machiavelli, focused thoroughly on politics and government. He would tell us that it is impossible to be a good politician and good person. In essence he painted a clear picture of the effectiveness vs. moral good or virtue paradigm. He coined the phrase “criminal virtue” from the source Virtu’ meaning strategy, resourcefulness, or strength. He believed that in life we all encounter something he referred to as ethical trade-offs meaning we (often) were faced with sacrificing neo-Christian or moral kindness for practical effectiveness. For example, we may need to lie to keep a relationship afloat or ignore an employees feelings to keep a business going. Machiavelli believed in dealing with the world as it is instead of how it should be. In terms of progress, Machiavelli teaches us to do what works or is effective rather than what is morally responsible for achievement.
In visual of terms of what defines our individual and collective progress as a society, it is beneficial to estimate that the most progress of any form is attained through acting on what is most effective or practical rather than what is moral. I believe that Machiavelli’s approach of effectiveness over morality paired with Hegel’s idea of the dialectic makes for the most successful formula if aiming for progress. Now, it is safe to consider various forms of this approach as “dangerous” or “unreasonable,” however, this would still test the limits and boundaries for what we currently know and institute as normative behavior, inevitably arriving us at a more clear and purposeful future. Life is a daily battle of morality vs. effectiveness for any individual or group attempting to make the most of themselves and only the individuals that take on the most realistic view of these realities in life will prosper.
Discussion Questions:
1. Do you agree with the idea that effectiveness is more important than morality?
2. Is Kant right that we should always treat people as an end unto themselves?
3. Do you think Socrates would look at our society today and agree that we have made progress?
Quiz:
1. Who coined the categorical imperative?
2. Who said the unjust man's soul is at war with itself?
3. Did Machiavelli agree with dealing with the world as 'how it should be?'
Sources:
Posts commented on:
https://cophilosophy.blogspot.com/2019/12/final-report-blog-post-section-11-ramey.html?showComment=1575580712714#c2333739812143180613
https://cophilosophy.blogspot.com/2019/12/niccolo-machiavelli-sam-gougeonpoole-13.html?showComment=1575581758268#c5535507383804615802
"Eudaimonia was interpreted subjectively" - Plato & Aristotle didn't think so, since flourishing in their terms meant cultivating and applying objective virtues (excellences, derived from 'arete') like wisdom, courage, temperance...
ReplyDelete“If Eudaimonia is to be achieved through the satisfaction of desire" - Glaucon doesn't understand eudaimonia, if he thinks it's all about fulfilling personal/subjective desire or serving "the interest of the stronger" etc.
"progress is never linear. He would tell us that the world makes progress only by lunging from one extreme to another" - That's not my understanding of Hegel's view. He does suggest that the "dialectic" of history involves the progressive resolution of contradictions, and maybe that can appear from within history to involve "lurching," but the ultimate rational end of history will have been a linear process. It's just that we can't see that from the inside (as it were): "the owl of Minerva flies only at twilight," it's only from the endpoint that all the foregoing unfolding of events will be grasped as leading inexorably to the end.
"Kant was a true pessimist about human nature" - I'm not sure about that. He was very confident in the power of reason to overcome our flawed, corruptible natures. It would make no sense to insist that we "sapere aude" if he wasn't.
Machiavelli, as you may have gleaned from my comment on the report below, is just about my LEAST favorite political philosopher. "He would tell us that it is impossible to be a good politician and good person." And I would tell him he shouldn't generalize from his own small sample of experience, nor should we from ours. There have been plenty of good people who were good politicians (though admittedly the rough-and-tumble of politics does force good people to compromise and behave occasionally in ways they'd prefer not to). This is the sort of pronouncement that can become self-fulfilling: if we instruct politicians to proceed as though we expect them to behave badly, many of them will live down to our low expectations. We need to set the bar higher, and insist on virtue in the public sphere.
"Machiavelli believed in dealing with the world as it is instead of how it should be" - Is it not better to deal with the world as it is AND as it should be? You can't get an ought from an is, as David Hume famously said, but eventually you can change what is, if you haven't abandoned your vision of how things should be.
"Machiavelli teaches us to do what works or is effective rather than what is morally responsible" - false dichotomy, I'd say... and so would the best Pragmatists who agree that we should do what works. Pragmatists and Kantians disagree about plenty, but they agree that moral responsibility works best over the long haul for the greatest number of us.
"...effectiveness over morality" - false dichotomy again... or if it isn't yet, we need to keep working and educating ourselves and our future politicians so that it will be.
"Life is a daily battle of morality vs. effectiveness for any individual or group" - I don't experience that personally, I hope most of us don't. Arguably that is the ethos of many in thew business world... and that's exactly what gives business a bad name.
I'm all for progress, but the form of progress that lifts all boats and raises everyone's capacity for true eudaimonia... not the form that allows some to manipulate and exploit others for personal gain. For the good form of progress, I'm afraid Signore Machiavelli is not our guy. But I'm also distressed that so many good and well-intentioned young people seem drawn to him.
Section 12
ReplyDeleteI don't agree that effectiveness is more important than morality. I feel like this is the plot line to any mad scientist movie where they want to better humanity by killing humanity. Morality is what matters in human relationship and decision making. It's what separates us from being savages like animals can be to each other. Without morality, this life would be much more grim.