Reads more like Nietzschean bullshit to me. Call me a Hegelian, where truth exists thru a human dialectical, thought providing each the freedom to throw their own excrement against the wall to call art. What is it they called it…oh yeah, the rankings of “superfluous men,” that’s where this, and the selective breeding crap is coming from.
In the real world, men who accomplish earn the right to affect a dialectic. Hegel noted Napoleon nearly apologetically. We could look at Musk, or even Trump. The biblical rebuttal was David, who certainly wasn’t “equipped” but has a friggin statue sculpted oh him by Michelangelo.
You remind me of Jim Rome’s rule: have a take and don’t suck! There’s your line…
Plato wrote 35 dialogues and the only interlocutor who is said to become a philosopher is Polemarchus. The highest possibilities for man are not available to all men.
This appears to me to be sophistry in the most negative sense.
Perhaps I am missing the point.
Before a discussion on the topic of virtue can commence, virtue must be at least roughly sketched out. The idea that somehow virtue requires education in the formal sense or material possessions is almost incomprehensible, unless the author has a concept of virtue which is entirely novel.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we will carry nothing out. Therefore if we have food and clothing we should with that be content."
In the Nicomachean Ethics (which Phocaean uses as his jumping off point) Aristotle does say that equipment is a necessary condition of being virtuous. But the term "equipment" is somewhat vague and so Phoc is trying to spell out what it might mean.
And even the Biblical contentment that you have in mind would require the equipment of someone offering a proper explanation of the passage that you draw from, or other similar passages which seek to inculcate the same kind of disposition. You need language at the very least, which requires teachers, which presupposes a familial / education infrastructure, which presupposes at least some level of material pre-requisites. Maybe Phoc can add to this explanation later if I didn't get across what he had in mind.
True enough you need language (arguably) though a person without language is a most unusual sort of person. This might be a means to make the claim that infants lack virtue, which I think in a reasonable conjecture. However, it appears to me the author is after big game, and not interested in trapping mice.
I believe that the Founding Fathers shared what you call a "novel" concept of virtue that the author is discussing. They were nearly unanimous in their support for the right to vote being granted exclusively to those who displayed the virtue necessary to be trusted to represent the values of the newly formed nation. Specifically, the status as a land-owning citizen who has his fortunes intertwined with the fledgling Republic, and the necessary education to understand the issues at hand. This was a common assumption for many generations - that you must be invested in the project of building and sustaining an unprecedented experiment in the governing of a nation. Claiming that everyone has the same investment and knowledge of the politics at hand is akin to the "everyone gets a trophy" approach in sports. This only serves to cheapen what it means to be a voting citizen and disenfranchise the taxpaying voter in favor of the government-dependent serf. Direct democracy is nothing more than mob rule for this very reason.
Good Delivery.
Glad you appreciated it.
Reads more like Nietzschean bullshit to me. Call me a Hegelian, where truth exists thru a human dialectical, thought providing each the freedom to throw their own excrement against the wall to call art. What is it they called it…oh yeah, the rankings of “superfluous men,” that’s where this, and the selective breeding crap is coming from.
In the real world, men who accomplish earn the right to affect a dialectic. Hegel noted Napoleon nearly apologetically. We could look at Musk, or even Trump. The biblical rebuttal was David, who certainly wasn’t “equipped” but has a friggin statue sculpted oh him by Michelangelo.
You remind me of Jim Rome’s rule: have a take and don’t suck! There’s your line…
Plato wrote 35 dialogues and the only interlocutor who is said to become a philosopher is Polemarchus. The highest possibilities for man are not available to all men.
This appears to me to be sophistry in the most negative sense.
Perhaps I am missing the point.
Before a discussion on the topic of virtue can commence, virtue must be at least roughly sketched out. The idea that somehow virtue requires education in the formal sense or material possessions is almost incomprehensible, unless the author has a concept of virtue which is entirely novel.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we will carry nothing out. Therefore if we have food and clothing we should with that be content."
In the Nicomachean Ethics (which Phocaean uses as his jumping off point) Aristotle does say that equipment is a necessary condition of being virtuous. But the term "equipment" is somewhat vague and so Phoc is trying to spell out what it might mean.
And even the Biblical contentment that you have in mind would require the equipment of someone offering a proper explanation of the passage that you draw from, or other similar passages which seek to inculcate the same kind of disposition. You need language at the very least, which requires teachers, which presupposes a familial / education infrastructure, which presupposes at least some level of material pre-requisites. Maybe Phoc can add to this explanation later if I didn't get across what he had in mind.
True enough you need language (arguably) though a person without language is a most unusual sort of person. This might be a means to make the claim that infants lack virtue, which I think in a reasonable conjecture. However, it appears to me the author is after big game, and not interested in trapping mice.
I believe that the Founding Fathers shared what you call a "novel" concept of virtue that the author is discussing. They were nearly unanimous in their support for the right to vote being granted exclusively to those who displayed the virtue necessary to be trusted to represent the values of the newly formed nation. Specifically, the status as a land-owning citizen who has his fortunes intertwined with the fledgling Republic, and the necessary education to understand the issues at hand. This was a common assumption for many generations - that you must be invested in the project of building and sustaining an unprecedented experiment in the governing of a nation. Claiming that everyone has the same investment and knowledge of the politics at hand is akin to the "everyone gets a trophy" approach in sports. This only serves to cheapen what it means to be a voting citizen and disenfranchise the taxpaying voter in favor of the government-dependent serf. Direct democracy is nothing more than mob rule for this very reason.
Excellent
Excellent read. You’re spot on about nearly every point.
Have you read/skimmed Alamariu’s Selective Breeding and the Birth of Philosophy?
Nice. Thanks.