_"In such a situation the rules have been deprived of any status that can secure their authority, and, if they do not acquire some new status quickly, both their interpretation and their justification become debatable."_
new Core Concept video, shot in one of my classes early on this semester -- discussing the relations between Goods, Rules (and following them), and Virtues in MacIntyre's view
The problem is probably solved by an idea of temporality. The best ( compared to what?) can be achieved given a set of time. Understand the time and the effort and the good is in fact the best.
I realise this video is quite old now, and I'm uncertain if I'll get a reply. But as a philosophy student who's a big fan of MacIntyre I was wondering where his views fit in meta ethically speaking? Ie: Is he a cognitivism or non-cognitivist? Naturalist or non-naturalist?
I'd say MacIntyre's views - and rightly so - show that meta-ethics is really not something separate from prescriptive ethics. Any more than meta-language - as Eco, Greimas, et al. have shown over and over - is really something separate from language.
MacIntyre expounds on external and external goods in practices on After Virtue. I found those lines to help me identify what is really important. Hope that helps!
Hi! I am from INDIA and you must visit this place, specially Our philosophy department in Delhi. Must read autobiography of a yogi by Paramhansa Yogananda if you have time just to realise lot of things can only be realised by enlightenment.
Vices are habits that damage goods. If health is a good, then smoking is a vice. I saw a sermon on UA-cam this morning that tried to argue that smoking was not a vice because it actually has positive health effects (at which point I stopped listening.) It seems to me that the only two ways of arguing that smoking is not a vice is either that, or saying that health is not a good. But maybe you have a third way.
_"In such a situation the rules have been deprived of any status that can secure their authority, and, if they do not acquire some new status quickly, both their interpretation and their justification become debatable."_
You have no idea how easy you make these philosophies for us ... Grand salute :) Thank you
Hopefully, just easy enough
new Core Concept video, shot in one of my classes early on this semester -- discussing the relations between Goods, Rules (and following them), and Virtues in MacIntyre's view
Well, I do have a video discussing perfectionism, in my Personal Talks playlist
The problem is probably solved by an idea of temporality. The best ( compared to what?) can be achieved given a set of time. Understand the time and the effort and the good is in fact the best.
I realise this video is quite old now, and I'm uncertain if I'll get a reply. But as a philosophy student who's a big fan of MacIntyre I was wondering where his views fit in meta ethically speaking? Ie: Is he a cognitivism or non-cognitivist? Naturalist or non-naturalist?
I'd say MacIntyre's views - and rightly so - show that meta-ethics is really not something separate from prescriptive ethics. Any more than meta-language - as Eco, Greimas, et al. have shown over and over - is really something separate from language.
Gregory B. Sadler
Thats brilliant! Thank you Professor Sadler, it helps massively.
Cool - something I've been meaning to write about for some time, actually. . .
Thanks for the lecture!
You're welcome!
I suppose. Probably, it's not an actual "problem" to be solved, but rather a danger to take note of.
I come to find that in my life the best is definitely the enemy of the good. Any advice on how to fix it?
MacIntyre expounds on external and external goods in practices on After Virtue. I found those lines to help me identify what is really important. Hope that helps!
Hi! I am from INDIA and you must visit this place, specially Our philosophy department in Delhi. Must read autobiography of a yogi by Paramhansa Yogananda if you have time just to realise lot of things can only be realised by enlightenment.
Given how busy I am, I only visit places because they're bringing me in as a speaker or consultant
If smoking is not a vice, then health is not a good.
That does not follow at all
Vices are habits that damage goods. If health is a good, then smoking is a vice. I saw a sermon on UA-cam this morning that tried to argue that smoking was not a vice because it actually has positive health effects (at which point I stopped listening.) It seems to me that the only two ways of arguing that smoking is not a vice is either that, or saying that health is not a good. But maybe you have a third way.
I don't need a third way. You're using "vice" where you mean "action" characteristic of a vice, in this case, intemperance