Plato: Unity of Virtue

Una deseada organización social por la cual se erige una teoría filosófica en materia política aparece en Platón como una cuestión de orden moral que tiene en la aprehensión de virtudes su naturaleza. La razón regenta sobre el alma cuya condición desiderativa puede tender a un extravío de la virtud, y por ello nada más contrario al orden de sí mismo que el estar dominado por placeres. No obstante, el placer, pese a su caracterización abyecta como sensación natural del hombre, (...) puntualiza sobre la virtud bajo una adecuada formación en su uso. Por tal razón, y por las muchas funciones que ejerce el placer (ἡδονή) en el corpus platonicum, es necesario atender al sentido que este posee en el proyecto educativo-político de Platón. (shrink)

Readers of the Republic have usually seen the passages about the stereotypical characteristics of communities as grounding the city-soul analogy. Plato indeed takes those attributions to be a powerful reason to expect the same types (εἴδη) and manners (ἤθη) in both the city and the individual soul and, hence, to affirm the structural isomorphism of polis and psyche (Resp. 435e). This natural reading is considerably challenged by Bernard Williams’ “The Analogy of City and Soul in Plato’s ‘Republic’” (2001), where it (...) is shown to entail paradoxes that make the analogy flawed. The point lies in the derivation principles that communal stereotypes imply. For while a community is expected to be, say, spirited precisely because all or many or its most prominent members are spirited, it seems that Plato’s perfect and imperfect constitutions fail to meet this simple requirement. In this paper, I will briefly examine Williams’ puzzles and lay out their core challenges. Then, I will discuss two of the most prominent attempts to meet them: Lear’s psychological interpretation and Ferrari’s metaphorical interpretation of the city-soul analogy. As I hope to show, they both entail consequences that run against some of the Republic’s most important aims or make them plainly unattainable. Finally, by distinguishing psycho-political forces (ἤθη) from psycho-political constitutions (εἴδη), I propose a solution that holds the derivation rules without falling prey to Williams’ paradoxes. This solution, we will see, calls for a prima facie compelling model of the unity of virtues, that is, a model showing how everyone in Callipolis may possess, in some way, all the virtues. (shrink)

The idea that moral virtues form some sort of “unity” has received considerable attention from virtue theorists. In this paper, I argue that the possibility of unity among intellectual virtues has been wrongly overlooked. My approach has two main components. First, I work to distinguish the variety of different views that are available under the description of a unity thesis. I suggest that these views can be categorised depending on whether they are versions of standard unity or of strong unity. (...) Standard unity claims that the possession of one virtue implies possession of all the others. Strong unity claims that the virtues are, in some sense, all the same thing. By exploring what these different versions of unity would look like when applied to intellectual virtues, I aim to provide a menu of options for future work in virtue epistemology. I then develop and defend one of these options in more detail, arguing that the initially less plausible strong unity has merit when applied to the intellectual sphere. In these two ways, I aim to show that the possibility of unity among the intellectual virtues is deserving of serious consideration. (shrink)

In the Protagoras, Socrates argues that all the virtues are the very same knowledge of human wellbeing so that virtue is all one. But elsewhere Socrates appears to endorse that the virtues-such as courage, temperance, and reverence-are different parts of a single whole. Ambiguity interpretations harmonize the conflicting texts by taking the virtue words to be equivocal, such as between theoretical and applied expertise, or between a power and its deeds. I argue that such interpretations have failed in their specifics (...) and in general, as I defend an alternative that takes into account Socrates' higher purpose in testing others, namely to show them their ignorance of virtue. (shrink)

The analysis focuses on the passage of Gorgias (506c–507c) in which Plato’s Socrates is having a dialog with himself. Socrates is talking to someone who, better than any other partner of discussion, is capable to discern the truth; this is an extraordinary way of expressing philosophical views by Plato. It suggests that in this passage Plato is considering questions which are of a primary importance. There are also other signs, both in the structure of the text and in the comments (...) made by Socrates regarding the form of discussion, which confirm that in this passage we deal with the most important matters. The analyzed passage refers to justice. First, Plato is summarizing views on justice of soul which were developed in the earlier parts of Gorgias. Then he is talking about justice of deeds as consisting in doing what is fitting as regards men. It is an addition to the earlier discussion and therefore the expression of this view can be recognized as the important reason why Socrates’ dialog with himself was constructed. Attention is paid to a certain gap in the argumentation. At the first glance it is not clear why the thesis that justice of soul is based on order and harmony of its elements justifies the thesis that justice of deeds consists in doing what is fitting as regards men. This gap can be filled in by the so-called Plato’s unwritten teaching on the good in itself. According to this teaching the good in itself is the one (the unity) which from its very nature gives existence and life by doing what is fitting as being advantageous to something. Order and harmony in the soul is the basis of its unity and therefore of its similarity to the good in itself and of the similarity of soul’s activity to the way the good is acting. Acting justly, doing what is fitting, in the sense of being advantageous to others, is the best thing a man or a woman can do, it is something which fulfills and makes him or her happy. Wisdom and — generally speaking — knowledge is clearly regarded as a means and not the aim in itself. An individual, and not an abstract idea, is the primary object of the activity which fulfills a rational being. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Piety, Justice, and the Unity of VirtueMark L. McPherranNo doubt the Socrates of the Euthyphro would be delighted to encounter many of its readers, offering as they do an audience of piety-seeking interlocutors, eager to mend the dialogical breach created by Euthyphro’s sudden departure. Socrates’ enthusiasm for this pursuit is at least as intense and comprehensible as theirs. We are told, after all, that he will never abandon his (...) quest for knowledge of “what the pious is” (15c–16a), since not only is this enterprise both pious and “inconceivably happy” (cf. Ap. 41c3–4) in itself,1 but coming to understand piety would allow one to “live better the rest of one’s life,” (15e7–16a4), especially should its continuation be threatened by a charge of impiety (3b–d, 5a–c, 12e, 15e–16a).2 My own search here is no less happy and ambitious, since I wish to uncover Socrates’ own, implicit understanding of piety and its relation to his claim elsewhere that “the virtues are one.”3 The account of this I shall provide will also touch on Platonic piety, although this notion obviously rests on a tendentious distinction. Nevertheless, there do seem to be some interesting differences between the way piety is treated in elenctic dialogues such as the Euthyphro and Protagoras, and the more explicitly theory-laden, constructive works such as the Republic and Laws. I shall later characterize [End Page 299] these differences, primarily in terms of the more carefully articulated, internalist moral psychology of the Republic.42. SOCRATIC PIETYThe distinct phenomena the term “religion” popularly designates for us were for the Greeks seamlessly integrated into everyday life. Thus, it is natural that the term “piety”—εὐσέβεια—carried a wider sense than our English equivalent commonly does: it concerned not only one’s immediate relation to the gods—emphasizing proper religious conduct and carrying a sense of respect and fear towards divinity (concomitant with a grasp of one’s own mortal limits)—but also often designated appropriate behavior towards parents, native land, and the dead.5 It is to this rough, inclusive conception of piety that Euthyphro appeals when confronted by Socrates on the Porch of the King (2a–6a). Moreover, and despite his own shockingly irreverent attempt at father-bashing and the subsequent elenctic drubbing he then receives from Socrates, toward the close of the dialogue Euthyphro still manages to envision piety in the quasi-traditionalist fashion with which he began—as “a knowledge of how to ensure the preservation of families and states by gratifying the gods through proper prayer and sacrifice” (14b; cf. 14c–15c).6 It is, however, precisely [End Page 300] at this dramatic juncture (14a–c) that we find—arguably—the final elements of a Socratically-acceptable conception of piety; one that builds upon Euthyphro’s initial concession to Socrates that piety and “human justice” are to be distinguished from one another (11e–12e). This, in turn, is a move that in principle forces Euthyphro to disengage from those aspects of the traditional conception of piety which would—from Socrates’ perspective—conflate the two.7 Recent challenges to this reading, however, have seen in Euthyphro’s initial holism not the heterogeneous presumptions of popular thought, but a semi-sophisticated grasp of the Socratic unity of the virtues.8 And since it does appear that the character Euthyphro is designed to serve not only as a hubristically-inflated, Homeric “fundamentalist,” but as an odd and Sophistically-influenced doppelgänger of Socrates as well—a lesson, that is, in what Socrates both is and is not—it now seems worthwhile to reexamine the view that Socratic piety is but a part and not the whole of justice.9Turning to our text, then, we discover that following the failure of Euthyphro’s initial definitional attempts to specify the nature of pious action and the resulting aporetic interlude, Socrates is willing to offer Euthyphro renewed assistance (11e1–4). This he does by asking whether all the just is pious, or whether justice is broader than piety such that piety is then merely a “part” (μóϱιον) of justice (11e4–12e5). Subsequent to his explanation of these alternatives, Socrates... (shrink)

Plato's "laches" is an investigation into the nature of courage with the intention of demonstrating the difficulty of singling out one virtue, namely courage, and defining it separately from the other cardinal virtues such as bravery, wisdom, justice, temperance, and piety. As the dialogue proceeds it becomes evident that socrates not only relates courage with the battlefield, but also with other spheres of life. Of special interest is his reference of being courageous regarding desires and pleasures where an overlap of (...) virtues is anticipated. This extension of the range of manifestations of courage indicates that his conception of courage transcends the traditional one in which he hints at a new sort of unity of courage and temperance, and on the other of courage and justice. One of plato's main aims in writing this dialogue was to mark out the intellectual limits of the two generals' positions, especially that of nicias, whose philosophical position could appear to be deceptively similar to the socratic one which he did not fully understand. (shrink)