“Aristotle’s claim that virtue is a disposition to choose in accordance with the relative mean [NE 2.6] is essentially empty, since it all depends on how you define ‘excess’ and ‘deficiency’ in describing a given virtue!”
What do you lot think about this ?
In my opinion, to some extent, this is a valid claim. How are we to know what is too much or what is too little ? Aristotle says we ought to be in the middle, such as being in the middle of cowardice and rashness, that is, when being courageous, but how can you know where this is ? Aristotle said that this depends on one’s natural disposition, but does man’s nature not vary across the board ?
It would appear then that there is no definition, and the subjectivity makes it impossible to pursue namely because everyone’s conception is different, and who is to judge which one is right ? To me, I may see someone saving a cat out of a burning building as courageous, but someone might see it as being rash; “Who cares about a cat ? You rashly ran into a building and risked your life for the sake of a domesticated feline.”
I think it appears to be empty if one does not fully comprehend it. Yes, it does not tell you how to arrive at the mean explicitly, but instead, it tells you how you ought to get there. I think of it as the equivalent of being handed a map, and having to figure out what direction to take to get to the relative mean. If people think of it as a rulebook, they will see it as empty, but this was not Aristotle’s intention; I think it is more of a guide on how to live your life, and what you ought to do.
I think Philosophy itself is all about being able to think deeply and reason for yourself and this just exemplifies this.
Any thoughts ? Do you think it is empty ?
Cheers !
