David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Topoi 4 (1):3-22 (1985)
In Section IV above we start with texts whose prima facie import speaks so strongly for the Identity Thesis that any interpretation which stops short of it looks like a shabby, timorous, thesis-saving move. What else could Socrates mean when he declares with such conviction that ‘no evil’ can come to a good man (T19), that his prosecutors ‘could not harm’ him (T16(a)), that if a man has not been made more unjust he has not been harmed (T20), that ‘all of happiness is in culture and justice’ (T16(a)), that living well is ‘the same’ as living justly (T15)? But then doubts begin to creep in. Recalling that inflation of the quantifier is normal and innocuous in common speech (“that job means everything to him, he'll do anything to get it, will stick at nothing ”) we ask if there is really no chance at all that ‘no evil’ in T19, ‘not harmed’ in T20 might be meant in the same way? The shift from ‘no harm’ at T16(a) to ‘no great harm’ at T16(b), once noticed, strengthens the doubt. It gets further impetus in T21(b) when to explain how ‘all of happiness is in culture and justice’ he depicts a relation (that recurs more elaborately in T22) which, though still enormously strong, is not quite as strong as would be required by identity. The doubt seeps into T15 when we note that current usage did allow just that relation as a respectable use of ‘the same’. At that point we begin to wonder if resort to the Identity Thesis might not be just a first approximation to a subtler, more finely nuanced, doctrine which would give Socrates as sound a foundation for what we know he wants to maintain at all costs - the Sovereignty of Virtue - without obliterating the eudaemonic value of everything else in his world. We cast about for a credible model of such a relation of virtue to happiness and hit on that multicomponent pattern sketched on p. 9 above. We ascertain that this will afford a comprehensively coherent eudaemonist theory of rational action, while its rival would not, and will fit perfectly a flock of texts in Section V which the latter will not fit at all. Are we not entitled to conclude that this is our best guide to the true relation of virtue to happiness in Socrates' thought - the one for which he would have declared if he had formulated explicitly those two alternative theses and made a reasoned choice between them?
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Patricia Ward Scaltsas (1992). Virtue Without Gender in Socrates. Hypatia 7 (3):126 - 137.
Fred Feldman (2010). What is This Thing Called Happiness? Oxford University Press.
Thomas C. Brickhouse & Nicholas D. Smith (1997). Socrates and the Unity of the Virtues. Journal of Ethics 1 (4):311-324.
Lara Denis (2006). Kant's Conception of Virtue. In Paul Guyer (ed.), Cambridge Companion to Kant and Modern Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
Naomi Reshotko (2006). Socratic Virtue: Making the Best of the Neither-Good-nor-Bad. Cambridge University Press.
Frans Svensson (2011). Happiness, Well-Being, and Their Relation to Virtue in Descartes' Ethics. Theoria 77 (3):238-260.
Panos Dimas (2002). Happiness in the Euthydemus. Phronesis 47 (1):1-27.
Panos Dimas (2002). Happiness in the "Euthydemus". Phronesis 47 (1):1 - 27.
Gary Watson (1983). Kant on Happiness in the Moral Life. Philosophy Research Archives 9:79-108.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads70 ( #16,183 of 1,008,715 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #28,098 of 1,008,715 )
How can I increase my downloads?