So I go into Starbucks today to get some coffee....

[CO Hummer]

....and this jerk budges in line in front of me.

So, this gets me thinking about Aristotelean ethics and that sort of thing. As I sit there drinking my coffee it hits me.

Morality is supposed to be about other people. It deals with our actions to the extent that they affect other people. Moral praise and blame is attributed on the grounds of an evaluation of our behavior towards others and the ways in that we exhibit, or fail to exhibit, a concern for the well-being of others. Virtue ethics, according to this objection, is self-centered because its primary concern is with the agent's own character. PhilD agrees with me that virtue ethics seems to be essentially interested in the acquisition of the virtues as part of the agent's own well-being and flourishing. Morality requires us to consider others for their own sake and not because they may benefit us. There seems to be something wrong with aiming to behave compassionately, kindly, and honestly because this will make me happier. KenP disagrees wholeheartedly. Related to this objection is a more general objection against the idea that well-being is a master value and that all other things are valuable only to the extent that they contribute to it. This line of attack, exemplified in the writings of Tim Scanlon, objects to the understanding of well-being as a moral notion and sees it more like self-interest. Furthermore, well-being does not admit to comparisons with other individuals. Thus, well-being cannot play the role that eudaimonists would have it play.
This objection fails to appreciate the role of the virtues within the theory. The virtues are other-regarding. I'm with DRTY on this - that kindness, for example, is about how we respond to the needs of others. The virtuous agent's concern is with developing the right sort of character that will respond to the needs of others in an appropriate way. The virtue of kindness is about being able to perceive situations where one is required to be kind, have the disposition to respond kindly in a reliable and stable manner, and be able to express one's kind character in accordance with one's kind desires. The eudaimonist account of virtue ethics claims that the good of the agent and the good of others are not two separate aims. Both rather result from the exercise of virtue. Rather than being too self-centered, understand what Timgco already knows, that virtue ethics unifies what is required by morality and what is required by self-interest.

[DennisAJC]

I'm with DRTY on this - that kindness, for example, is about how we respond to the needs of others. The virtuous agent's concern is with developing the right sort of character that will respond to the needs of others in an appropriate way. The virtue of kindness is about being able to perceive situations where one is required to be kind, have the disposition to respond kindly in a reliable and stable manner, and be able to express one's kind character in accordance with one's kind desires.

The harsh truth and conviction in your words put tears in my eyes. And quite a surprise about DRTY.

Invigorating to my mind and spirit. Thank you CO.:beerchug:

BTW, You should have never edited out the butterfly and PhilD. It was a symbol of the ambiotic curtain between the body and soul.

[h2co-pilot]

Did you tip? you Elitist Bastard!!!:jump:

[MarineHawk]

....and this jerk budges in line in front of me. ... Morality is supposed to be about other people. ... Morality requires us to consider others for their own sake and not because they may benefit us. ... kindness, for example, is about how we respond to the needs of others.

You're probably right, but what if the jerk desperately needs a good bitch-slapping? Is it immoral to satisfy his need?

[K9sH3]

Did you tip? you Elitist Bastard!!!:jump:

OMG, Give him a break at least he went inside. :jump:
and of course he gave a tip. And he kept his calm, I hate when ppl cut in line.

[JamesT]

Did you tip? you Elitist Bastard!!!:jump:

HEY!!!!! I am the ELITIST BASTARD! Get it right. :excited:

[JamesT]

You're probably right, but what if the jerk desperately needs a good bitch-slapping? Is it immoral to satisfy his need?

:iagree: :beerchug: :clapping: but you knew I would.

[Bully13]

Drive through! (No one ever cuts in front of me or bumps into me when I roll in the Hummer)

[Bully13]

pad... 667 is better than 666

[h2co-pilot]

HEY!!!!! I am the ELITIST BASTARD! Get it right. :excited:

My bad, you Bastard.:giggling:


Drive through! (No one ever cuts in front of me or bumps into me when I roll in the Hummer)

Check out this Bastard.:rolleyes::D

[GLBLWARMR]

I always have a very powerful (SBD) in reserve to defile the nostrils of the bastard that tries to cut in front of me. They usually walk away until the fumes clear. I get further in line.

[Hmmm2]

pad... 667 is better than 666
Ohhhhhh hahahhaha .. I did EXACTLY the same thing when I hit THAT number!!! :giggling:

[xburbman]

Hmmmm, I side with Ken on this one: Morality requires us to consider others for their own sake and not because they may benefit us. There seems to be something wrong with aiming to behave compassionately, kindly, and honestly because this will make me happier. KenP disagrees wholeheartedly. :iagree:

- In other words, don't go around bein a 'do gooder' and puttin up a front just cause it makes you feel good. - And besides that, Ken offered 3 kind, compassionate and helpful words prior to my honeymoon in Italy. They were: Get Married First. - He B rite! I now completely understand and appreciate his words of wisdom.

[KenP]

I look forward to our discussion for it will be adequate if it has as much clearness as the subject-matter admits of, for precision is not to be sought for alike in all discussions, any more than in all the products of the crafts. Now fine and just actions, which political science investigates, admit of much variety and fluctuation of opinion, so that they may be thought to exist only by convention, and not by nature. And goods also give rise to a similar fluctuation because they bring harm to many people; for before now men have been undone by reason of their wealth, and others by reason of their courage. We must be content, then, in speaking of such subjects and with such premisses to indicate the truth roughly and in outline, and in speaking about things which are only for the most part true and with premisses of the same kind to reach conclusions that are no better. In the same spirit, therefore, should each type of statement be received; for it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs.

Now each man judges well the things he knows, and of these he is a good judge. And so the man who has been educated in a subject is a good judge of that subject, and the man who has received an all-round education is a good judge in general. Hence a young man is not a proper hearer of lectures on political science; for he is inexperienced in the actions that occur in life, but its discussions start from these and are about these; and, further, since he tends to follow his passions, his study will be vain and unprofitable, because the end aimed at is not knowledge but action. And it makes no difference whether he is young in years or youthful in character; the defect does not depend on time, but on his living, and pursuing each successive object, as passion directs. For to such persons, as to the incontinent, knowledge brings no profit; but to those who desire and act in accordance with a rational principle knowledge about such matters will be of great benefit.

These remarks about the student, the sort of treatment to be expected, and the purpose of the inquiry, may be taken as our preface

[xburbman]

I look forward to our discussion for it will be adequate if it has as much clearness as the subject-matter admits of, for precision is not to be sought for alike in all discussions, any more than in all the products of the crafts. Now fine and just actions, which political science investigates, admit of much variety and fluctuation of opinion, so that they may be thought to exist only by convention, and not by nature. And goods also give rise to a similar fluctuation because they bring harm to many people; for before now men have been undone by reason of their wealth, and others by reason of their courage. We must be content, then, in speaking of such subjects and with such premisses to indicate the truth roughly and in outline, and in speaking about things which are only for the most part true and with premisses of the same kind to reach conclusions that are no better. In the same spirit, therefore, should each type of statement be received; for it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs.

Now each man judges well the things he knows, and of these he is a good judge. And so the man who has been educated in a subject is a good judge of that subject, and the man who has received an all-round education is a good judge in general. Hence a young man is not a proper hearer of lectures on political science; for he is inexperienced in the actions that occur in life, but its discussions start from these and are about these; and, further, since he tends to follow his passions, his study will be vain and unprofitable, because the end aimed at is not knowledge but action. And it makes no difference whether he is young in years or youthful in character; the defect does not depend on time, but on his living, and pursuing each successive object, as passion directs. For to such persons, as to the incontinent, knowledge brings no profit; but to those who desire and act in accordance with a rational principle knowledge about such matters will be of great benefit.

These remarks about the student, the sort of treatment to be expected, and the purpose of the inquiry, may be taken as our preface

Indeed! Your knowledge and wisdom on these things speaks clearly to my mind and I too look forward to exchange of thoughts of variant subject matter which be adequate if it has as much clearness as the subject-matter admits of, for precision is not to be sought for alike in all discussions, any more than in all the products of the crafts. Now fine and just actions - Yeah; Italian women R fine and actionalble. We must be content, then, in speaking of such subjects - or in my case(being on my honeymoon) merely viewing said subjects, but Oh to be King!
with such premisses to indicate the truth roughly and in outline - their clothes covered the truth roughly (albeit tightly), however their smooth and soft outlines were of an hourglass nature. Now each man judges well the things he knows, and of these he is a good judge. - I know of these things well however am confounded still from time to time.
And so the man who has been educated in a subject is a good judge of that subject, and the man who has received an all-round education is a good judge in general. - AHHHH! Education! Being taught of the differences - great and small, of the nuances between lust and love, only to be brought back to the port of indecision, wherein we must stand and ...pardon me 'I digress'! And it makes no difference whether he is young in years or youthful in character - I B the latter;
but to those who desire and act in accordance with a rational principle knowledge about such matters will be of great benefit. - I wish to act in accordance with all that I have learned in order to give my wife child - although it is difficult at times (when my wife calls during a meeting to tell me she's ovulating and that I need to come home); it will be well-worth the outcome(pardon the pun) when we are able to raise the child, Indeed, it will be of great benefit. -

I thank you for your continued ponderance and thought provoking words.

[JamesT]

I am so lost in with this thread.

In hope of sounding even remotly as inteligent as ya'll let me contribute this:

WTF are you talking about? :mad:

[CO Hummer]

I am so lost in with this thread.

In hope of sounding even remotly as inteligent as ya'll let me contribute this:

WTF are you talking about? :mad:

James,
Sorry about that. Hope this clears it up.....

There are basically two camps on the theory of intelligence: those who believe in one unilinear construct of general intelligence (g), and those who believe in many different intelligences. Binet founded the French school of intelligence, in which intelligence tests were regarded as a practical means of separating the bright from the dull. Intelligence quotient (IQ) was regarded as simply an average of numerous dissimilar abilities, not as a real thing with definite properties that could be studied. Galton founded the English school of intelligence, in which it was believed that intelligence is a real faculty with a biological basis and could be studied using reaction times on simple cognitive tasks.
The English school took a huge step forward with Spearman's invention of factor analysis. Using this technique, Spearman found that all tests of intelligence have positive correlations (loadings) on the general factor and called this factor general intelligence. However, Thurstone later disputed the prominence assigned to general intelligence by rotating the factors. In this way he found several primary mental abilities, instead of the one found by Spearman.

[JamesT]

Oh. I see now. Thanks.

I agree with the first part but only if the second part holds true on days that it rains. In that case I would have to agree with the third thing ya'll said BUT I reserve the right to change my mind.

Why is there blood coming out of my ears? :crying:

Can we discuss something more on my level please? How about favorite colors? I like blue. My favorite number is 17.

Ya'll are nutz!

[Hmmm2]

I am so lost in with this thread.

In hope of sounding even remotly as inteligent as ya'll let me contribute this:

WTF are you talking about? :mad:
Ohhhhh hahahahahahahaha ...it's bizarre, isn't it? :giggling:
:jump:

[DennisAJC]

Ohhhhh hahahahahahahaha ...it's bizarre, isn't it? :giggling:
:jump:


:jump: :jump: :jump:

[KenP]

James,
Sorry about that. Hope this clears it up.....

There are basically two camps on the theory of intelligence: those who believe in one unilinear construct of general intelligence (g), and those who believe in many different intelligences....To further that:
Scientific knowledge is judgement about things that are universal and necessary, and the conclusions of demonstration, and all scientific knowledge, follow from first principles (for scientific knowledge involves apprehension of a rational ground). This being so, the first principle from which what is scientifically known follows cannot be an object of scientific knowledge, of art, or of practical wisdom; for that which can be scientifically known can be demonstrated, and art and practical wisdom deal with things that are variable. Nor are these first principles the objects of philosophic wisdom, for it is a mark of the philosopher to have demonstration about some things. If, then, the states of mind by which we have truth and are never deceived about things invariable or even variable are scientific knowlededge, practical wisdom, philosophic wisdom, and intuitive reason, and it cannot be any of the three (i.e. practical wisdom, scientific knowledge, or philosophic wisdom), the remaining alternative is that it is intuitive reason that grasps the first principles.

Practical wisdom on the other hand is concerned with things human and things about which it is possible to deliberate; for we say this is above all the work of the man of practical wisdom, to deliberate well, but no one deliberates about things invariable, nor about things which have not an end, and that a good that can be brought about by action. The man who is without qualification good at deliberating is the man who is capable of aiming in accordance with calculation at the best for man of things attainable by action. Nor is practical wisdom concerned with universals only-it must also recognize the particulars; for it is practical, and practice is concerned with particulars. This is why some who do not know, and especially those who have experience, are more practical than others who know; for if a man knew that light meats are digestible and wholesome, but did not know which sorts of meat are light, he would not produce health, but the man who knows that chicken is wholesome is more likely to produce health.


Political wisdom and practical wisdom are the same state of mind, but their essence is not the same. Of the wisdom concerned with the city, the practical wisdom which plays a controlling part is legislative wisdom, while that which is related to this as particulars to their universal is known by the general name 'political wisdom'; this has to do with action and deliberation, for a decree is a thing to be carried out in the form of an individual act. This is why the exponents of this art are alone said to 'take part in politics'; for these alone 'do things' as manual labourers 'do things'.

Practical wisdom also is identified especially with that form of it which is concerned with a man himself-with the individual; and this is known by the general name 'practical wisdom'; of the other kinds one is called household management, another legislation, the third politics, and of the latter one part is called deliberative and the other judicial. Now knowing what is good for oneself will be one kind of knowledge, but it is very different from the other kinds; and the man who knows and concerns himself with his own interests is thought to have practical wisdom, while politicians are thought to be busybodies.

[JamesT]

To further that:
Scientific knowledge is judgement about things that are universal and necessary, and the conclusions of demonstration, and all scientific knowledge, follow from first principles (for scientific knowledge involves apprehension of a rational ground). This being so, the first principle from which what is scientifically known follows cannot be an object of scientific knowledge, of art, or of practical wisdom; for that which can be scientifically known can be demonstrated, and art and practical wisdom deal with things that are variable. Nor are these first principles the objects of philosophic wisdom, for it is a mark of the philosopher to have demonstration about some things. If, then, the states of mind by which we have truth and are never deceived about things invariable or even variable are scientific knowlededge, practical wisdom, philosophic wisdom, and intuitive reason, and it cannot be any of the three (i.e. practical wisdom, scientific knowledge, or philosophic wisdom), the remaining alternative is that it is intuitive reason that grasps the first principles.

Practical wisdom on the other hand is concerned with things human and things about which it is possible to deliberate; for we say this is above all the work of the man of practical wisdom, to deliberate well, but no one deliberates about things invariable, nor about things which have not an end, and that a good that can be brought about by action. The man who is without qualification good at deliberating is the man who is capable of aiming in accordance with calculation at the best for man of things attainable by action. Nor is practical wisdom concerned with universals only-it must also recognize the particulars; for it is practical, and practice is concerned with particulars. This is why some who do not know, and especially those who have experience, are more practical than others who know; for if a man knew that light meats are digestible and wholesome, but did not know which sorts of meat are light, he would not produce health, but the man who knows that chicken is wholesome is more likely to produce health.


Political wisdom and practical wisdom are the same state of mind, but their essence is not the same. Of the wisdom concerned with the city, the practical wisdom which plays a controlling part is legislative wisdom, while that which is related to this as particulars to their universal is known by the general name 'political wisdom'; this has to do with action and deliberation, for a decree is a thing to be carried out in the form of an individual act. This is why the exponents of this art are alone said to 'take part in politics'; for these alone 'do things' as manual labourers 'do things'.

Practical wisdom also is identified especially with that form of it which is concerned with a man himself-with the individual; and this is known by the general name 'practical wisdom'; of the other kinds one is called household management, another legislation, the third politics, and of the latter one part is called deliberative and the other judicial. Now knowing what is good for oneself will be one kind of knowledge, but it is very different from the other kinds; and the man who knows and concerns himself with his own interests is thought to have practical wisdom, while politicians are thought to be busybodies.


Hey wait a minute. Are you cut/pasting this stuff?

[JamesT]

OK. Im in on this now. Here's what I think.

Practical wisdom, or phronesis, is also aimed at truth, but truth in the service of action. It is concerned with what can be otherwise, with things that change. What changes might be thought to cover everything from the generation of peat bogs to the number of hairs on our heads (sadly always changing downwards both numerically and gravitationally). What Aristotle seems to be concerned with, in his analysis of practical wisdom, is things that change and are related to how humans live their lives among other humans. If we take a contemporary example, whether to drop the first atomic bomb or not, clearly there are questions of a technical nature about how to build the bomb and the nature of atomic decay. This is knowledge about things that change, but are not really what Aristotle has in mind when he talks about practical wisdom. Whilst an understanding of the technical feasibility of an atomic bomb is needed, the practically wise person would focus upon understanding the historical, political, military and human situation, determining what should be accomplished in this situation, and deciding what the best way of accomplishing these objectives is. Aristotle claims that only the person who is morally virtuous will be able to be practically wise, because only the morally virtuous person will perceive what really matters in the situation, and be motivated to carry out the appropriate action. Because practical wisdom is in the service of action, about things that change, and because human beings have to choose some actions rather than others, they need to be able to deliberate well about what actions are needed to bring about what is rightly desired; someone who is both morally virtuous and has practical wisdom will perceive and deliberate well, and hence, choose well.

[KenP]

Hey wait a minute. Are you cut/pasting this stuff?That brought moisture to my eyes, dear friend.

After these matters we ought perhaps next to discuss pleasure. For it is thought to be most intimately connected with our human nature, which is the reason why in educating the young we steer them by the rudders of pleasure and pain; it is thought, too, that to enjoy the things we ought and to hate the things we ought has the greatest bearing on virtue of character. For these things extend right through life, with a weight and power of their own in respect both to virtue and to the happy life, since men choose what is pleasant and avoid what is painful; and such things, it will be thought, we should least of all omit to discuss, especially since they admit of much dispute. For some say pleasure is the good, while others, on the contrary, say it is thoroughly bad-some no doubt being persuaded that the facts are so, and others thinking it has a better effect on our life to exhibit pleasure as a bad thing even if it is not; for most people (they think) incline towards it and are the slaves of their pleasures, for which reason they ought to lead them in the opposite direction, since thus they will reach the middle state. But surely this is not correct. For arguments about matters concerned with feelings and actions are less reliable than facts: and so when they clash with the facts of perception they are despised, and discredit the truth as well; if a man who runs down pleasure is once seen to be alming at it, his inclining towards it is thought to imply that it is all worthy of being aimed at; for most people are not good at drawing distinctions. True arguments seem, then, most useful, not only with a view to knowledge, but with a view to life also; for since they harmonize with the facts they are believed, and so they stimulate those who understand them to live according to them.

[CO Hummer]

Hey wait a minute. Are you cut/pasting this stuff?

Bloody hell, you are quick. :D

:dancingbanana: :OWNED::dancingbanana:

[h2co-pilot]

Ah Yes. Hell.

The things that make heaven beautiful, and hell ugly, are not objective, observable by everybody, because they aren't material, like a beautiful diamond that everybody would see the same way. They are values made sensually beautiful only to those who have them inside, states of mind. An angel is beautiful because of his or her values, not beautiful to just anybody. Consequently, a person of a hellish state of mind would not be attracted to heaven.

[JamesT]

Ya got me...

Kiss My Arss! Fawrkers!

:jump:

[JamesT]

Ah Yes. Hell.

The things that make heaven beautiful, and hell ugly, are not objective, observable by everybody, because they aren't material, like a beautiful diamond that everybody would see the same way. They are values made sensually beautiful only to those who have them inside, states of mind. An angel is beautiful because of his or her values, not beautiful to just anybody. Consequently, a person of a hellish state of mind would not be attracted to heaven.

I am gonna puke!

[CO Hummer]

Ya got me...

Kiss My Arss! Fawrkers!

:jump:

You know, I find this whole thing humorous. That got me thinking about what KenP said the other day. He'll argue that acceptance is necessary for humor, it is said by some that humor must involve playfulness, a mirthful attitude, and even love. DRTY said that humor involves a mix of wit and love. Timgco once wrote, The essence of humor is sensibility; warm, tender, fellow-feeling with all forms of existence." That is, its essence is love. It can be, but all that is minimally needed is to accept the fault or deviation. Any other synonym for "acceptance" would also be possible, e.g. humor involves sympathy, optimism, a positive outlook, generosity in thinking,, easy going nature, flexible thinking, humanistic attitude, responsiveness, compassion, kindliness, interest, understanding, magnanimity, charity, liberation, freedom, considerateness. We may similarly say that humor involves forgiveness. We can now laugh at our lovely weeds.

[KenP]

You speak of the good things in life, just as DRTY, Adam and Tim are those who identify happiness with virtue or some one virtue. Our account is in harmony; for to virtue belongs virtuous activity. But it makes, perhaps, no small difference whether we place the chief good in possession or in use, in state of mind or in activity. For the state of mind may exist without producing any good result, as in a man who is asleep or in some other way quite inactive, but the activity cannot; for one who has the activity will of necessity be acting, and acting well. And as in the Olympic Games it is not the most beautiful and the strongest that are crowned but those who compete (for it is some of these that are victorious), so those who act win, and rightly win, the noble and good things in life.

[JamesT]

Ken,

All of what you say has merit. I would ask you to consider this before offering any further conclutions.


Erectile dysfunction, sometimes called "impotence," is the repeated inability to get or keep an erection firm enough for sexual intercourse. The word "impotence" may also be used to describe other problems that interfere with sexual intercourse and reproduction, such as lack of sexual desire and problems with ejaculation or orgasm. Using the term erectile dysfunction makes it clear that those other problems are not involved.
Erectile dysfunction, or ED, can be a total inability to achieve erection, an inconsistent ability to do so, or a tendency to sustain only brief erections. These variations make defining ED and estimating its incidence difficult. Estimates range from 15 million to 30 million, depending on the definition used. According to the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS), for every 1,000 men in the United States, 7.7 physician office visits were made for ED in 1985. By 1999, that rate had nearly tripled to 22.3. The increase happened gradually, presumably as treatments such as vacuum devices and injectable drugs became more widely available and discussing erectile function became accepted. Perhaps the most publicized advance was the introduction of the oral drug sildenafil citrate (Viagra) in March 1998. NAMCS data on new drugs show an estimated 2.6 million mentions of Viagra at physician office visits in 1999, and one-third of those mentions occurred during visits for a diagnosis other than ED.
In older men, ED usually has a physical cause, such as disease, injury, or side effects of drugs. Any disorder that causes injury to the nerves or impairs blood flow in the penis has the potential to cause ED. Incidence increases with age: About 5 percent of 40-year-old men and between 15 and 25 percent of 65-year-old men experience ED. But it is not an inevitable part of aging.
ED is treatable at any age, and awareness of this fact has been growing. More men have been seeking help and returning to normal sexual activity because of improved, successful treatments for ED. Urologists, who specialize in problems of the urinary tract, have traditionally treated ED; however, urologists accounted for only 25 percent of Viagra mentions in 1999.

[Hmmm2]

Hey wait a minute. Are you cut/pasting this stuff?
Ya think? (:giggling:)

[DRTYFN]

I am gonna puke!
I did.

[Bully13]

I did.
Your thoughts betray you. Let me expand on this...

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men :fdance: are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, :eek: testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.

It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.