Message from @oscar
Discord ID: 486211179593596938
for example
I can't really, y'know
Own a person right now.
@Alice Redacted Aristotelian virtue isn't a list of rules, it's a list of qualities that a person has. In my view you teach children qualities like wisdom and courage - you don't for the most part tell them exactly what to think.
Slavery, as generally agreed upon, is bad
Today
what's wise? What's courageous?
@Alice Redacted I thought that's fluid and relative?
Wisdom to one might be foolish to another
A few hundred years ago its pretty much universally accepted
Courage to one might be idiocy to another
no a specific action might be courageous to one and idiotic to another
that's what I'm saying
the abstract concept of courage is agreed upon to be good
It's too abstract and has no applicable use
the question is how to apply that fact specifically
kind of like "virtue"
Don't confuse not being able to explain how bread is ultimately constituted with an inability to bake bread
Virtue is too vague of a term to have any real meaning
Also, why should we teach said subjects?
What are you teaching then?
It seems to me as if you're merely just teaching a word
Praising a word
You teach virtue not through words, but by showing people how to muster their emotions to be disciplined
"muster their emotions to be disciplined"?
It's like strength training, there is a knowledge component in terms of skill, but they build that skill and they build their strength through practice
Are you implying that emotions must be cracked down upon?
That the very thing which separates man from beast must be destroyed
Animals most certainly have emotions
Oh, of course
they're certainly more fleshed out in humans, and we're able to express them to a greater degree
I'm talking in a more abstract sense, though
I suppose "beasts" or "monsters" would have been a more apt word
perhaps "machines", whatever word you care to use
Cracking down on emotions is a road to cruelty, to inexcusable behavior, not befitting of humankind
If you cannot control your emotions, you cannot keep promises, because you will only keep your promises until they become difficult and you no longer "feel" like it
I contend
That if one can "control" their emotions, they'd be more willing to break promises and oaths, as they'd feel no regret, no remorse, and no pity for having broken said agreement
Arguably, emotions reinforce oaths of loyalty and such
After all, it can be more pragmatic to backstab, lie, cheat, and steal