Massimo: Did you carefully choose the pair of prompts on the Chat (Seneca "On the Brevity of Life" 14) and here in the Notes (from Cicero) to get us thinking? Or was it pure blind luck? Of course Cicero could not have been talking about Seneca but his description certainly fits with one of the assessments of Seneca's life and work. Willy (below) uses the word "hypocrite" to describe the Cicero's philosophers, a word often applied to Seneca. The Seneca passage in Chat suggests someone making a conscious effort to craft his legacy and cement his influence in addition to offering philosophic advice. "The Brevity ..." is a later work, written at an age when people start to think of their legacies. Not so much special pleading but certainly working in his own self interest. This coupling has certainly caught my attention, in a good way!
Judy, I wish I could take credit for being so clever. Alas, the two passages are the result of independent choices. But glad to hear they contributed to your thinking on the matter!
Academic moral philosophy is so abstract that it doesn’t completely surprise me that moral philosophers are not more virtuous than the average person. Studying some meta-ethical theory or the particular objections to some normative theory does not really correlate with being a better person. Maybe their beliefs are more ethical (that would be a loaded discussion!) But if they don’t practice courage, then their actions will not be more ethical.
I do think moral philosophers and philosophers in general should be more concerned with the good life and being intellectual role models though!
Matthew, right, I think the problem is that moral philosophy has gotten so abstract and analytical. Which is exactly what Cicero, Seneca, and Epictetus were warning about.
Seems like it should be situational on whether someone is a deliberate hypocrite, special pleading (which is a still a problem, but I think a separate one), or simply had a moment/s of weakness/ignorance of contradiction, intentional or unintentional.
Of course even when it's not hypocrisy, it seems like what they preach should still be put into not necessarily immediate dismissal, but at least in question, if one is constantly failing, maybe there's something/s wrong with the idea even if the person is relatively honest.
On a side note, I don't think I'd really care if hear a grammar teacher speak improperly outside the classroom, I don't think we always need to speak formerly in every situation, I don't really see an issue with sometimes using "I ain't" even outside of comedies or poor education. Though I'm also not sure has English changed again and "ain't" has finally become an accepted word, I was taught it wasn't.
Willy, the example of the grammarian need not be understood literally, that is, on every occasion. But if the grammarian had a reputation for not speaking properly out of ignorance, then you would be advised to think twice before signing up as his student.
Same for the moral philosopher. We all lapse, very few people are sages. But one would expect better than average from one who is teaching ethics. The fact is, most modern moral philosophers I know simply don’t see it as their role to be (more) moral. They have completely divorced the theory from the practice. That can’t be good.
If moral philosophers are not more ethical than the average person, I wouldn't say that this makes them morally worse off: I think they're just not benefitting as much as they could from the knowledge they're getting.
I couldn't resist offering a quick thought, as your objection is quite thought-provoking. I think it would be reasonable to assume they might be worse off in some cases, because their deep understanding of ethical theories could lead to greater moral uncertainty and/or indecision, potentially making them less likely to act on their moral knowledge compared to someone with a simpler, more instinctive approach to ethics. However, this is not a universal assumption go course. it would depend on the individual and how they engage with their philosophical knowledge.
Somewhat. Aristotle’s point was that if we wish to persuade people we can’t just present arguments. We also have to establish our credibility and connect with them at an emotional level.
Tatia, good point. That would be analogous to those people who go to seminary and develop doubts about their religion. Fair enough, but then don’t go on and be a priest…
Massimo: Did you carefully choose the pair of prompts on the Chat (Seneca "On the Brevity of Life" 14) and here in the Notes (from Cicero) to get us thinking? Or was it pure blind luck? Of course Cicero could not have been talking about Seneca but his description certainly fits with one of the assessments of Seneca's life and work. Willy (below) uses the word "hypocrite" to describe the Cicero's philosophers, a word often applied to Seneca. The Seneca passage in Chat suggests someone making a conscious effort to craft his legacy and cement his influence in addition to offering philosophic advice. "The Brevity ..." is a later work, written at an age when people start to think of their legacies. Not so much special pleading but certainly working in his own self interest. This coupling has certainly caught my attention, in a good way!
Judy, I wish I could take credit for being so clever. Alas, the two passages are the result of independent choices. But glad to hear they contributed to your thinking on the matter!
Academic moral philosophy is so abstract that it doesn’t completely surprise me that moral philosophers are not more virtuous than the average person. Studying some meta-ethical theory or the particular objections to some normative theory does not really correlate with being a better person. Maybe their beliefs are more ethical (that would be a loaded discussion!) But if they don’t practice courage, then their actions will not be more ethical.
I do think moral philosophers and philosophers in general should be more concerned with the good life and being intellectual role models though!
Matthew, right, I think the problem is that moral philosophy has gotten so abstract and analytical. Which is exactly what Cicero, Seneca, and Epictetus were warning about.
Seems like it should be situational on whether someone is a deliberate hypocrite, special pleading (which is a still a problem, but I think a separate one), or simply had a moment/s of weakness/ignorance of contradiction, intentional or unintentional.
Of course even when it's not hypocrisy, it seems like what they preach should still be put into not necessarily immediate dismissal, but at least in question, if one is constantly failing, maybe there's something/s wrong with the idea even if the person is relatively honest.
On a side note, I don't think I'd really care if hear a grammar teacher speak improperly outside the classroom, I don't think we always need to speak formerly in every situation, I don't really see an issue with sometimes using "I ain't" even outside of comedies or poor education. Though I'm also not sure has English changed again and "ain't" has finally become an accepted word, I was taught it wasn't.
Willy, the example of the grammarian need not be understood literally, that is, on every occasion. But if the grammarian had a reputation for not speaking properly out of ignorance, then you would be advised to think twice before signing up as his student.
Same for the moral philosopher. We all lapse, very few people are sages. But one would expect better than average from one who is teaching ethics. The fact is, most modern moral philosophers I know simply don’t see it as their role to be (more) moral. They have completely divorced the theory from the practice. That can’t be good.
If moral philosophers are not more ethical than the average person, I wouldn't say that this makes them morally worse off: I think they're just not benefitting as much as they could from the knowledge they're getting.
I couldn't resist offering a quick thought, as your objection is quite thought-provoking. I think it would be reasonable to assume they might be worse off in some cases, because their deep understanding of ethical theories could lead to greater moral uncertainty and/or indecision, potentially making them less likely to act on their moral knowledge compared to someone with a simpler, more instinctive approach to ethics. However, this is not a universal assumption go course. it would depend on the individual and how they engage with their philosophical knowledge.
I guess this relates to Aristotle's 'logos, ethos pathos' trifecta.
Somewhat. Aristotle’s point was that if we wish to persuade people we can’t just present arguments. We also have to establish our credibility and connect with them at an emotional level.
Tatia, good point. That would be analogous to those people who go to seminary and develop doubts about their religion. Fair enough, but then don’t go on and be a priest…
Sibbs, but it seems a bit hypocritical, no? Like a doctor who tells you not to smoke while puffing on a cigarette…
Yes; I see what you mean.
Is it hypocritical to use dark humor to laugh the pain away?
No, I don’t think it is. A sense of humor, as Mel Brooks said, is a defense against the universe.
Thank you. Working on my gallows humor.