Did Aristotle know about the Dunning-Kruger effect, which is when stupid people think they are the smart ones? A stupid person may also be an unwise person, and a stupid person can be too stupid to realize that they are unwise, and therefore they won't have the self-awareness or ability to seek out a wise person. Can an unwise person have enough wisdom to seek out people with wisdom? Maybe a person can be unwise but humble enough to realize that they are unwise. A wise person might realize that they lack knowledge and also be humble enough to seek help from someone who has the knowledge. A person could be very knowledgeable, have a great ability to reason, and also be arrogant, prideful, and stubborn. A stupid person could be wise enough to seek help, and a very knowledgeable person could be too proud to seek help. Therefore, pride can cause unwise behavior even in very smart people, and humility can cause wise action from a stupid person.
Yes, the vice of vanity ( excess of pride) and vice of “lack of ambition” (lacking in pride). Aristotle and the Scholastics, who he inspired, talked about the limitations of individual. For example, can’t know all things so he must rely on others.
@@Siralexandrine Thanks. To "dig deeper," I'm wondering what an accurate definition of pride is that can relate to both excess and lack. I'm guessing that, from the context, pride would be described as accurate self-worth. An inaccurate overestimation of self-worth or capability would be vanity, and an inaccurate underestimation of self-worth or capability could result in a lack of ambition. The word pride can have both an honorable and dishonorable connotation.
@@FairnessIsTheAnswer For Aristotle, I think is pretty correct. For Christians Scholastic, the vanity-pride-lack of ambition (excess-virtue-deficiency) was replaced with pride-humility-self loathing. But reading someone like Aquinas, I would argue they are pretty much the same. Humility, like proper pride, is knowing one’s limit and worth.
@@FairnessIsTheAnswer specifically about the Dunning-Kruger affect, Aristotle does speak about a certain vanity that comes from people who are “well-born” or born wealthy. They overstate their capacities. While the person with proper pride may be wealthy or well-born, he places pride in doing honour able things and knowing his limit not in being wealthy or well-born. While I can’t think of a particular passage, I wouldn’t be surprised if Aristotle would agree with a similar take on people believing they are more knowledgeable than they actually are.
@@Siralexandrine Maybe at some future point in "time," we'll all know the perfect definitions. I guess then all our minds would be perfectly synchronized with exact meanings. In that state, there would be no possibility for opinion or confusion. Until then, thanks for the discussion. Haha!
3:28 Kant did not set down a list of moral rules for us to follow like robots. That would be Ayn Rand (be rational, be independent, have pride, etc.). Kant recommended a formula called the categorical imperative that people can use to make ethical decisions with. Any rules that Kant brought up were examples, not parts of a list of duties.
id argue he actually did, Kants rules are just not specific to each circumstance, the CI is a criteria you can apply to any action apriori. So yes, Kant did create a set of rules for all occasions, because these rules are transcendent ideals they always "ought" apply. Aristotle and Kant believed Morality rested in "reason" not so much that reason =Morality, only that it is accessed and understood through the faculty of reason (as opposed to heart or guts feels) . I think Aristotle was on the same path as Kant, only not as developed, Aristotle's rule is to do "Good" seems to be in the virtue of what you do, almost virtue ethics.. hrrmm could be argued that Virute ethics is a pre cursor to Kants transcendental imperative, only the good is found through a different criteria to apply your reason to, that of what is the virtue of the task, but the conditions change depending what you where doing Medicine or Military with Aristotle, with Military and Medicine the virtues are a contradiction in the grand scheme, is it better to heal or better to kill, they both cant be right? where with Kant you can carry around these ideals and apply them to everything in your life in medicine or military or pottery.. although the CI dosnt fare well for military if you apply the CI and there in lies the rub..
@@SocratesCurse Agreed. But it does not offer any new moral laws, only a new formula. The laws themselves were already considered to be duties in Kant's social milieu. Honesty, for example, was widely accepted to be an absolute moral law in his time and later. That may be why Kant chose it as an example.
ChatGPT says it best: "Indeed, you've captured a significant aspect of Kant's moral philosophy. Kant's moral system, grounded in his notion of the categorical imperative, does not propose entirely new moral laws but rather provides a rational framework for understanding and evaluating moral duties that were already commonly accepted in his social context. Kant's moral philosophy emphasizes the importance of moral principles that are binding on all rational agents by virtue of their rationality alone, independent of particular desires or circumstances. The categorical imperative serves as a criterion for determining the moral permissibility of actions, stating that one should act only according to maxims that could be willed to be universal laws. In choosing examples such as honesty, Kant illustrates how moral duties that were already widely accepted can be understood and evaluated through the lens of the categorical imperative. Honesty, for example, can be seen as a moral duty because it is based on the universalizable maxim that lying undermines trust and violates the dignity of rational beings. While Kant's moral philosophy does not introduce entirely new moral laws, it offers a systematic and rigorous approach to moral reasoning that provides a foundation for understanding, evaluating, and justifying moral duties that were already recognized in his social milieu. Kant's emphasis on rational autonomy and the universalizability of moral principles has had a profound influence on moral philosophy and continues to be a significant framework for ethical thought today."
"Good and bad" or "right and wrong". If it's useful to accomplish a task, it is good. If not, it is bad. Wisdom is based on this. Follow the wise. Are the wise always right? Ask Byron, who was bled by wise doctors, who also treated him with blister making substances. Byron was killed by the wise.
People could learn of the concepts of Aristotle, accept them as valid, and use some concepts as beliefs for the justification to do what is immoral. If the accepted definition of what is good is what causes a goal to be achieved, then harm to others may not be considered in the evaluation of what is good. A person could have the goal of stealing from someone, and using Aristotle's definition of good as being whatever achieves the goal, a successful theft would be ethical. This is obviously disgusting and ridiculous to anyone who has any respect for other people. Even though Aristotle had the ability to reason and presented insightful ideas, that doesn't mean that he promoted ideas that could result in a "greater good" for the world as a whole.
@@FairnessIsTheAnswer I think the word inaccurate is not quite right. Aristotle’s Ethics are much more complex than this video covers. The same could be said for the comments made about Kant by this gentleman. Aristotle wrote at great length about ethics, so the best thing to do is read them. They’re not simple, but much easier than Kant’s Categorical Imperative.
@@SocratesCurseI hope to have the perfect understanding of ethics eventually. The sooner the better. I also want to behave ethically, not just know what I should do.
Did Aristotle know about the Dunning-Kruger effect, which is when stupid people think they are the smart ones? A stupid person may also be an unwise person, and a stupid person can be too stupid to realize that they are unwise, and therefore they won't have the self-awareness or ability to seek out a wise person. Can an unwise person have enough wisdom to seek out people with wisdom? Maybe a person can be unwise but humble enough to realize that they are unwise. A wise person might realize that they lack knowledge and also be humble enough to seek help from someone who has the knowledge. A person could be very knowledgeable, have a great ability to reason, and also be arrogant, prideful, and stubborn. A stupid person could be wise enough to seek help, and a very knowledgeable person could be too proud to seek help. Therefore, pride can cause unwise behavior even in very smart people, and humility can cause wise action from a stupid person.
Yes, the vice of vanity ( excess of pride) and vice of “lack of ambition” (lacking in pride). Aristotle and the Scholastics, who he inspired, talked about the limitations of individual. For example, can’t know all things so he must rely on others.
@@Siralexandrine Thanks. To "dig deeper," I'm wondering what an accurate definition of pride is that can relate to both excess and lack. I'm guessing that, from the context, pride would be described as accurate self-worth. An inaccurate overestimation of self-worth or capability would be vanity, and an inaccurate underestimation of self-worth or capability could result in a lack of ambition. The word pride can have both an honorable and dishonorable connotation.
@@FairnessIsTheAnswer For Aristotle, I think is pretty correct. For Christians Scholastic, the vanity-pride-lack of ambition (excess-virtue-deficiency) was replaced with pride-humility-self loathing. But reading someone like Aquinas, I would argue they are pretty much the same. Humility, like proper pride, is knowing one’s limit and worth.
@@FairnessIsTheAnswer specifically about the Dunning-Kruger affect, Aristotle does speak about a certain vanity that comes from people who are “well-born” or born wealthy. They overstate their capacities. While the person with proper pride may be wealthy or well-born, he places pride in doing honour able things and knowing his limit not in being wealthy or well-born.
While I can’t think of a particular passage, I wouldn’t be surprised if Aristotle would agree with a similar take on people believing they are more knowledgeable than they actually are.
@@Siralexandrine Maybe at some future point in "time," we'll all know the perfect definitions. I guess then all our minds would be perfectly synchronized with exact meanings. In that state, there would be no possibility for opinion or confusion. Until then, thanks for the discussion. Haha!
Dedicated effort
3:28 Kant did not set down a list of moral rules for us to follow like robots. That would be Ayn Rand (be rational, be independent, have pride, etc.). Kant recommended a formula called the categorical imperative that people can use to make ethical decisions with. Any rules that Kant brought up were examples, not parts of a list of duties.
id argue he actually did, Kants rules are just not specific to each circumstance, the CI is a criteria you can apply to any action apriori. So yes, Kant did create a set of rules for all occasions, because these rules are transcendent ideals they always "ought" apply.
Aristotle and Kant believed Morality rested in "reason" not so much that reason =Morality, only that it is accessed and understood through the faculty of reason (as opposed to heart or guts feels) . I think Aristotle was on the same path as Kant, only not as developed, Aristotle's rule is to do "Good" seems to be in the virtue of what you do, almost virtue ethics.. hrrmm could be argued that Virute ethics is a pre cursor to Kants transcendental imperative, only the good is found through a different criteria to apply your reason to, that of what is the virtue of the task, but the conditions change depending what you where doing Medicine or Military with Aristotle, with Military and Medicine the virtues are a contradiction in the grand scheme, is it better to heal or better to kill, they both cant be right? where with Kant you can carry around these ideals and apply them to everything in your life in medicine or military or pottery.. although the CI dosnt fare well for military if you apply the CI and there in lies the rub..
@@allthingsgardencad9726 The CI aligns well with the Geneva Conventions.
The Categorical Imperative does pretty much say to follow certain laws with no wiggle room.
@@SocratesCurse Agreed. But it does not offer any new moral laws, only a new formula. The laws themselves were already considered to be duties in Kant's social milieu. Honesty, for example, was widely accepted to be an absolute moral law in his time and later. That may be why Kant chose it as an example.
ChatGPT says it best: "Indeed, you've captured a significant aspect of Kant's moral philosophy. Kant's moral system, grounded in his notion of the categorical imperative, does not propose entirely new moral laws but rather provides a rational framework for understanding and evaluating moral duties that were already commonly accepted in his social context.
Kant's moral philosophy emphasizes the importance of moral principles that are binding on all rational agents by virtue of their rationality alone, independent of particular desires or circumstances. The categorical imperative serves as a criterion for determining the moral permissibility of actions, stating that one should act only according to maxims that could be willed to be universal laws.
In choosing examples such as honesty, Kant illustrates how moral duties that were already widely accepted can be understood and evaluated through the lens of the categorical imperative. Honesty, for example, can be seen as a moral duty because it is based on the universalizable maxim that lying undermines trust and violates the dignity of rational beings.
While Kant's moral philosophy does not introduce entirely new moral laws, it offers a systematic and rigorous approach to moral reasoning that provides a foundation for understanding, evaluating, and justifying moral duties that were already recognized in his social milieu. Kant's emphasis on rational autonomy and the universalizability of moral principles has had a profound influence on moral philosophy and continues to be a significant framework for ethical thought today."
"Good and bad" or "right and wrong". If it's useful to accomplish a task, it is good. If not, it is bad. Wisdom is based on this. Follow the wise.
Are the wise always right?
Ask Byron, who was bled by wise doctors, who also treated him with blister making substances. Byron was killed by the wise.
i don't know what is meant by soul.
First comment😊
People could learn of the concepts of Aristotle, accept them as valid, and use some concepts as beliefs for the justification to do what is immoral. If the accepted definition of what is good is what causes a goal to be achieved, then harm to others may not be considered in the evaluation of what is good. A person could have the goal of stealing from someone, and using Aristotle's definition of good as being whatever achieves the goal, a successful theft would be ethical. This is obviously disgusting and ridiculous to anyone who has any respect for other people. Even though Aristotle had the ability to reason and presented insightful ideas, that doesn't mean that he promoted ideas that could result in a "greater good" for the world as a whole.
If you actually read all of Aristotelian or Nichomachean Ethics, you wouldn’t be making this comment. He was no relativist.
@@SocratesCurse Is the video inaccurate?
@@FairnessIsTheAnswer I think the word inaccurate is not quite right. Aristotle’s Ethics are much more complex than this video covers. The same could be said for the comments made about Kant by this gentleman. Aristotle wrote at great length about ethics, so the best thing to do is read them. They’re not simple, but much easier than Kant’s Categorical Imperative.
@@SocratesCurseI hope to have the perfect understanding of ethics eventually. The sooner the better. I also want to behave ethically, not just know what I should do.
@@FairnessIsTheAnswerAristotle is also interested in how to live your best life. He’s worth looking into, as are many others.