Aristotle & Virtue Theory: Crash Course Philosophy #38

[@johngeronimo8821]

1:55 Functions of Human 2:27 What is virtuous? 3:01 Virtue and Mesotes 3:25 Example of Virtue as Mesotes(middle) 6:06 Virtue as a Practical Wisdom 6:16 Habit 6:33 Moral Exemplars 7:20 Eudaimonia

[@alexispawson6976]

MinaLisa Perriano you’re a saint

[@wazoowi]

You're a godsend thank u mate

[@wheresmyeyebrow1608]

Why would you make timestamps for a 9 minute video?

[@johngeronimo8821]

@@wheresmyeyebrow1608 oh im sorry sir. I made this stamps to my classmates in College to understand this topic. I send the link and this comments to know its overall content.

[@johnpaulpineda2476]

@@wheresmyeyebrow1608 Why bother bro? It's really a helpful one. :) It really saves alot of time. don't you mind. ;)

[@manosdiamantaras1469]

I'm from Greece and eudaimonia ("ευδαιμονία", but you may also see it as "εὐδαιμονία" from anciet greek) is come from 2 words. The 1st word is the prefix "ευ-" which means good and the 2nd word is "δαίμονας" (or "δαίμων" on ancient greek) which means demon. But we use this word in order to say: This man has good spirit (Αυτός ο άντρας είναι καλόψυχος).

[@justtheouch]

Thank you for the insight!

[@manosdiamantaras1469]

Josh Cottle You are welcome ^_^

[@jimjim3979]

Glad you cleared it up. But actually demon is misleading because back in antiquity demon didn't insinuate sin and bad spirits e.t.c it just meant gods but not the 12 gods ,rather the gods who distributed to someone their features . (διανέμω >δαίμων) . They were something like the Fates (Klotho , Atropos, Lachesis ) . For example, Socrates in Symposium calls Love s Demon because love more or less fixes our lifes

[@Disobeyedtoast]

I think it's important to note that the "golden mean" isn't necessarily always the mathematical mean, it can be closer to one vice than the other.

[@Desolation66]

The golden mean switches based on the situation. So the mugger example, the mean is closer to recklessness, but if someone has a gun to your face demanding money the mean is closer to cowardice.

[@chowtom5174]

Eudaimonia is....... finishing my essay the night before the deadline and still have time to catch plenty of sleep

[@daxnihilson9380]

So a few comments: 1. The place of virtue in the soul is important to note because of Aristotle's ultimate goals. For Aristotle, the ultimate goal is happiness (which we know because everyone desires it), and happiness for Aristotle is rational activity of the soul in accordance with virtue. This is because there are essentially three parts of the soul to Aristotle (well, two and a half). The first part is pure reason, the rational part of the soul. The other parts of the soul could both be considered "nonrational," but one of them (the appetitive part), is capable of following reason. The reason I bring this up is because it's necessary to know to understand why virtue is important at all- it's the means of the nonrational to cooperate with the rational. 2. Virtue is not an arithmetic mean, but rather a circumstantial one. Hank somewhat implies this, but it's important to be said more fully, as the interpretation of it as an arithmetic mean was done extensively in the middle ages, which is actually a pretty terrible misreading. Consider the purpose of a virtue like temperance- if someone has the virtue of temperance, they are able to fight against the urges of the body and have reason overcome them. Considering this an arithmetic mean, like the church did, puts a hard limit on not doing things like drinking, which removes the focus of the virtues from the idea of cooperation with rationality. Like I said, the rationalism is important. 3. Virtue also can't just be done, it has to be intended. Children are able to do virtuous things by accident, but that does not mean they are virtuous. This is something that Hank actually misses a bit. The importance of intention, once again, connects to the idea of rationality. I bring this all up because it's easy to overemphasize character virtues in Aristotle's works. The rational aspects of it are just as important, and shouldn't be neglected to be noted in an introductory video. Not criticizing, just expanding.

[@HI1804]

*sees thief* "Could i please check your age, height,weight,strength,stamina,agility, intelligence and overall dexterity before we do this"

[@nono-hp5kx]

i agree that naturally become a good person by having good intent and wisdom and focus with passion (i theorize passionate view of the world and inner philosophy) makes someone virtuous but i dont agree that EVERYTHING is in the middle I think that there need to be a good balance like he said, but some things are both closer to the stronger (extremes) but in the middle in total/part at the same time let's say there you had an bag full of wood, and important items are not in your bag and you might be able to fight the guy, then you make a deal to give that bag to the robber if he leaves the grandma alone and you do it by offering him your bag full of shitty wood and luring him away from the old lady by leaving your bag on the floor and laying down 25 feet next to it, but you dont fight him, that is both less rekless than typical courage but more brave and virtuous than typical courage so it is both i think the philosophical psychology of aristotle is that he knew the good focus created good virtuous character, but he did not know how to justify his theory and lol

[@abrahamrocha4763]

Omg 😲 YOUR'E GORGEOUS!!!

[@maerythegreek9008]

@@nono-hp5kx Aristole believed actually that the better "road" for everything is in the middle,a balance between good and bad (lack and exaggeration). He admits that both exist but middle is right way in art,in life and to achieve our goals.. It's a shame that we can't find the middle in today's civilisation of fanatism and decline! (Anyway I gave exams on this subject..)

[@minissa2009]

@@maerythegreek9008 This is a key feature of what the Buddha taught!

[@maerythegreek9008]

@@minissa2009 Yes! The phyloshophy of Budishm was this idea of the "middle" Western philosophy has this "white and black" destinction but the Asiatic has grey zones!

[@Citelq]

Hooray for free education!

[@K4R3N]

It's from PBS, your taxes paid for this. Nothing is free.

[@CANomad27]

When you sit in a classroom for 4 months and then get more information from a video that's not even 10 min long.

[@carsonbarlow348]

+

[@PragmaticAntithesis]

RIP traditional education.

[@josephinemcgregor]

yep

[@JBLuv78]

Know the feeling. I consider the classroom months "stewing" and these videos "enjoying the finished product"

[@Matthew-fh4xo]

you had a grant or a scholarship, or you just wasted a lot of money... j/k

[@grimtheghastly8878]

Virtue theory: I WANNA BE! THE VERY BEST! LIKE NO ONE EVER WAS!

[@IvanDo0m]

I study philosophy, and I can confirm, this was spot on. The examples you used, were really good. Keep up the good work. :)

[@deehall7371]

This channel is getting me an A on two papers and two exams

[@Lightning_Lance]

I think I'm with Aristotle on this one.

[@angelic8632002]

Me too. Imagine if everyone followed this life philosophy. The golden rule essentially. Act in accordance with how you yourself would wish to be treated(works in most cases). We would also work much better as a society since individual happiness is often dependent on how well the group is doing. And Aristotle clearly recognizes our basic human need for community. Its literally in out DNA. Of course the goal is always to give individuals the freedom to express themselves in accordance with their nature, as long as it doesn't get in the way of others ability to do the same. The collaboration of the group is an ends to a means. Not the goal in and of itself. A tool, but a tool we all have an equal right to.

[@Triumph263]

I think Plato had some great ideas but Aristotle's always seem to be more practical. Plato's ideas were thought provoking but Aristotle's ideas seem to be timeless, irrefutable and worth following rather than just contemplating. It doesn't matter if you believe in God, gods, no god(s) or a spaghetti monster; Aristotle's golden mean makes sense. How many philosophers can actually create philosophies that everyone can agree on that isn't blatantly obvious?

[@minionr4207]

The theory does have flaws, but so does every theory. I tend to approach philosophy in an individualistic sense, meaning that I pick and choose parts that define my personal viewpoint. The golden mean is one of the useful things I take, as well as parts of pragmatism (judging things based on practical value), and bits of Confucian social theory, and many other bits and pieces.

[@U_F_N_M]

+Bob Stanvo : I would say the reason you need to keep working at eudaimonia is not for reasons of self satisfaction, which is a conceit. You seem to completely skim over the part where it is explained that the golden mean is situational, not categorical. You don't get to decide what is right. You take stock of the situation through the mindset of pragmatic empathy. There is always a new situation, new information, social paradigm shifts. The nature of reality is changed by our perceptions of it and we must adapt to the ways our virtue is challenged. Ultimately, the best thing about virtue is that as long as you actively seek the golden mean in every situation, it doesn't mater what the government, or the religion, or the media, or your friends and family say. You will know the right way to act and think if you pursue the path of virtue.

[@blond_bolshevik]

Bob Stanvo but Aristotle does in fact have a more exclusive conception of eudaimonia, i.e., it is not as subjective as this video makes it sound. Aristotle says that all humans have logos, or reason (also translated as language), and we use logos to communicate with one another because living in complete isolation (for a human being) is practically impossible. So we are meant to live in cities or communities, and insofar as this is the case, we must possess virtues and exercise virtuous activity so as to continue living and make possible the best life available to humans, i.e., virtuous activity and theoretical wisdom. So by adopting some relativist conception of human eudaimonia that does not include practical or theoretical wisdom, than you are not acting in accordance with nature. In other words, you are not performing the function of good human being, and so your action can never be good for you

[@eddieking2976]

Reminds me of the "middle path", in Buddhist philosophy.

[@adamforsstrand2048]

While that's kinda true, I believe none of those (the "golden mean" and the "middle path") overlap one another. It's just another golden nugget of life. Take these philosophies together: the "middle path" (buddhism), the "golden mean" (aristotle) and the "golden rule" (Confucius, "Treat others as you'd want to be treated" for short), and they're all kinda related, but they only reinforce themselves as ideas and philosophies of life (and death), together to create a somewhat "Golden Path".

[@phils0209]

you can practically exchange the word 'virtue' in the video with 'wisdom'

[@taschke1221]

adam forsstrand I'd have to say the US Army Rangers have them all beat. "Do as the natives do." Of course you have to take a general concensus to get a handle on social norms, you can't just take the first knucklehead you see and make them the gold standard. You take what you know and you give concideration to the environment your in and act accordingly. If you've been paying attention up to that point and not self-absorbed, you'll do just fine. People tend to stress about their own problems to a point that they haven't really made the time to consider the problems of others. You may have a brother or sister or many who are in the same boat, literally or by means of the stress it causes them, emotionally, physically, etc. Everyone's problems are great to themselves because they effect us directly but other peoples' problems have indirect effects that can be just as important (i.e. they lash out one day, they pass away, they quit their job, they give up on getting a job, they are angry or sad and it slowly makes you angry or sad, etc.) It's too deep for me to encompass in a single message but I hope I've made and reenforced my point from an angle that a) you may not have thought of and b) turns out to be positively influential influential some way.

[@andrejansen3281]

Indeed, very similar. I would call Buddhist ethics virtue ethics. Although in Buddhism, morality alone is just the beginning' and morality alone doesn't give rise to eudaimonia or release from sufferring. Morality is a foundation from which to build wisdom, or insight into the true nature of things in order to avoid the trappings of craving, attachment and other delusions. For example, coping with the loss of loved ones, rejection, poor health, and the subtle rise and fall of the ego - all the while acting morally unblameworthy. It's broken down into 1. Avoid the bad (morality) 2. Do only good (skillful action and kindness - also included in virtue theory) and 3. Purify the mind (meditation and contemplation)

[@ishmaelforester9825]

Out of interest, have you seriously studied Aristotelian or Buddhist ethics? With the utmost respect, I have to say there really is nothing you have apparently imbibed from the US Army Rangers that was not profoundly explored and considered by those noble traditions thousands of years ago.

[@lukassnakeman]

CC philosophy is my favorite CC series

[@kaerblover]

"Eudaimonia doesn’t mean a life of cupcakes and rainbows. It means the sweet pleasure of sinking into bed at the end of an absolutely exhausting day. It’s the satisfaction of knowing you’ve accomplished a lot, and that you’ve pushed yourself to be the very best person you could be." ~Crash Course Philosopy #38

[@Obtaineudaimonia]

Eudaimonia. So important I named my channel after it. Great video guys.

[@GogiRegion]

(+Eudaimonia) 😆 Legit, though, that is cool.

[@placeholdername3818]

I'm going to be disappointed if your channel isn't about achieving that.

[@nono-hp5kx]

i agree that naturally become a good person by having good intent and wisdom and focus with passion (i theorize passionate view of the world and inner philosophy) makes someone virtuous but i dont agree that EVERYTHING is in the middle I think that there need to be a good balance like he said, but some things are both closer to the stronger (extremes) but in the middle in total/part at the same time let's say there you had an bag full of wood, and important items are not in your bag and you might be able to fight the guy, then you make a deal to give that bag to the robber if he leaves the grandma alone and you do it by offering him your bag full of shitty wood and luring him away from the old lady by leaving your bag on the floor and laying down 25 feet next to it, but you dont fight him, that is both less rekless than typical courage but more brave and virtuous than typical courage so it is both i think the philosophical psychology of aristotle is that he knew the good focus created good virtuous character, but he did not know how to justify his theory

[@CaptainHarlock-kv4zt]

Ευδαιμονια *(Greek)

[@NN-rs1ny]

your channel is amazing

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

These Greeks were ahead of their time! What a great theory!!!

[@DianaSofronieva]

They were not 'ahead of their time'. It was a cultured civilization which is in certain ways far better than our own, one of the best times and places for a person to live in. Our age is in certain ways barbaric compared to theirs.

[@jerrymcghoulberry355]

Diana Sofronieva Please explain why you view our society as barbaric.

[@bernardoqalopio1262]

@@jerrymcghoulberry355 lol

[@jerrymcghoulberry355]

@Τυχαίος 'Ελληνας Wow that's such a cool story.

[@jerrymcghoulberry355]

@Τυχαίος 'Ελληνας Also no.

[@TheRocketeerFly]

This has been the path I've been trying to traverse. Being the best kind of person. To become fulfilled without stepping on others. Doing the right thing. Sharing smiles and laughter and can't handle it when I hurt people or make them sad.

[@jacquelinealmazan9169]

Thank you so much for breaking this down for me! My professor had us reading long essays to learn about virtue ethics but I understood nothing until I came across your crash course. Thank you!

[@melonlord5711]

This is my favorite philosophy theory so far. It's far more realistic and applicable in the real world than Kantian ethics for example (in my opinion).

[@semaeraslan7714]

This is by far one of the most well-done videos i've ever watched recently. I like the content, the way it's put.. Really appreciate your work! Thanks Crash Course!

[@reggiewatts1926]

I love crash course man.

[@nachochips8090]

I love crash course, man

[@therongjr]

reggie watts I love Crash Course Men and Women both!

[@cappsbriley]

His name is hank green or something

[@jmiquelmb]

That was a nice positivistic approach compared to other previous ones. Also, Eudaimonia is a fun word. Eudaimonia. Haha. Eudaimonia

[@0744401]

How insulting.

[@Jus10Ed]

Eudaimonia. Eudaimonia. You're right; that is fun.

[@jmiquelmb]

Why?

[@0744401]

Calling someone a positivist is one of the worst insults you can call a modern philosopher. It's tantamount to saying they are a pretentious bag of hot air and nonsense.

[@jmiquelmb]

Annaelle Jacques-Morel Well, I meant that it feels more positive to me. "If you try to behave well on a daily basis, you'll do good." English is not my first language, so maybe I didn't explained well.

[@akap]

Aristotle V Godzilla NEEDS to be a movie.

[@johnarbuckle2619]

JudaTheIsm YES

[@SomePointlessShit]

I'm not sure why but I read that as Gorillaz...

[@drefir42]

SomePointlessShit Also yes!

[@pena9530]

all of the yes

[@Triumph263]

"Being a super-powerful all-mighty lizard-thing may be awesome but you're doing it in excess!" *throws car at him*

[@KiiNETiiK]

This is the first moral theory that resonates with me. I personally relate more with this theory than the others. Thank you for sharing Crash Course.

[@PlanetLuthian]

Lovely discussion, but left out the virtuous multiplier. A person can be more virtuous if he makes a effort to be morw prepared. Eg.. 1. Trained CPR/1st aid > cellphone + 911 2. Earnings wealth and give > give what's on hand

[@Asasnol21]

Eudaimonia. Eu( Greek for good) + Daimon ( Spirit,Soul ). Etymologically it means that you are not barely surving but having fun doing so. Being happy in an abstract way. I am a greek and we have to study ancient greek in the curriculum so i know.

[@clarissamercer2790]

That's is very interesting. Especially in that "eu" stands for good. "Eu" in Portuguese means "I". Does this again reinforce the idea that we are all "good" or at least striving for the good throughout our lives?

[@coltonmccoy1428]

That is really interesting, but I will just leave this here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy

[@mylittleflyaway]

I don't believe that virtue is something predestinated in our personality - but rather the development of human maturity. I do think positive actions are as useless as words as long as their intentions are meaningless or even harmful. But intentions and emotions, for me, tell you more about a person than their actions could, and can compromise a possible negative outcome. I believe that everybody deserves a second chance.

[@Hecatonicosachoron]

Etymologically you can break down eudaimonia to "eu"="good" and "daimon"="god" or "spirit". It's essentially the state where the "gods" seem to be conspiring in your favour.

[@fymf00100]

Eudaimonia sound a lot like "living after the manner of happiness" I mentioned in the comments of a previous video. I also mentioned that we are "becoming." Sounds like Aristotle would say that what we are to become is virtues. We definitely can recognize virtues acts "by their fruits you shall know them" or Light of Christ, but I would disagree that we have to see an example first (certainly helps though).

[@KC-ge1vf]

Thank you so much for making these videos. You're making student's life 100x easier, and it's good for people who's not in school to know something valuable in a very concentrate time. I will keep watching your videos even after I graduate!

[@NeilSonOfNorbert]

watching this i was stunned by how precisely this describes my morality, with the exception of believing everyone is instinctively moral. striving for the happy middle between extremes, trying to be a good person as an active process, heck i almost literally live the flash philosophy example and came to the same conclusions. all this before i had ever heard of Aristotle's moral philosophy.

[@masonbloomquist2124]

i love this its like "if you do it right you'll know what do do" "ok then what do i do?" "your doing it wrong"

[@XavierGuillaume]

I study the Tao Te Ching and Lao Tzu is pretty much using this philosophy. How to live that happy median of doing the right thing but not too much or too little of the right thing. Also the Tao Te Ching is vague and instead of being rules it is more like guidelines. I think because Lao Tzu recognizes that rules would imply right and wrong and right and wrong would imply superiority within people, but Lao Tzu does not believe in superiority because he sees the natural goodness in everyone.

[@sketchyAnalogies]

Xavier Guillaume Humans have an infinite inalienable intrinsic value. This is distinct from moral and ethical superiority to one another. Hitler did ethically evil things. Mother Theresa did ethically good things. Obviously Mother Theresa is the more virtuous and better person, despite both Hitler and Mother Theresa having the same infinite inalienable intrinsic value. Moral exemplars are de facto better at virtue than those who are not. Virtue does not impact a person’s value.

[@dimitrisboulios]

This was a great video. As a greek myself, I'd like to share this information about the definition of Eudaimonia. We learn in school that the meaning of this word has been changed several times. The philosophers of the age before 500BC gave to this word the meaning of "Someone who gets anything he asks for from the Gods" (maybe because he is in good relationship with them). Then, around 500BC, Hippocrates, Demodocus and then Aristotle gave the meaning that we also use to day: "To be happy regardless of the situations, feeling accomplished for taking action always with good manners."

[@stuffwithsoph8264]

God I love Philosophy.

[@thaylinxie]

You help like no other. I researched so much on eudaimonia and I didn't understand it till this video. I'm so happy. Passing Humanities Midterm lets goooooooo

[@djbslectures]

5:13 is good, constructive advice to 99% of KZbin comments

[@emoore29681]

DJBsLectures yes, really. I don't have the time to diffuse cyber wars on a daily basis, but I usually end up doing that anyway.

[@matth1005]

Your comment is stupid

[@marvinedwards737]

About eudaimonia, I've criticized Utilitarians for being too "feelings based", because feelings are malleable. First, pleasure and pain often mislead us away from what is actually good for us. Second, our feelings are malleable, how people feel about things can often be changed. So the correct sequence must always be to first find what is good, and then choose to feel good about it. Thus eudaimonia is not the end goal of morality. Obtaining the best good and least harm for everyone is the end goal of morality. If we are seeking that, then we ought to feel good about it, and satisfied when we achieve it. Creating a good person of ourselves, by a life-long learning of how to be better at being and doing good, is something we should feel good about.

[@ShaedeReshka]

Eudaimonia isn't exactly feeling based. It's more founded on the idea of the "good" and having led a life that was "good". Plato and Aristotle both snubbed the idea of morality being focused on one's feelings. Eudaimonia is described as a kind of happiness, but one that emerges from the good rather the other way around. One didn't live a good life because they wanted to be happy. They were happy because they led a good life.

[@marvinedwards737]

Bob McBobberbob Yes, pleasure and pain evolved to help provide us guidance, but they are crude tools and often mislead us. A vaccination is good for us even though it's painful. Heroin is bad for us even though it feels good.

[@marvinedwards737]

Bob McBobberbob The problem with defining the goal in terms of specific genes is that everyone has a unique set. The only way to pass on that set would be to somehow revert back to non-sexual reproduction. There is a survival advantage to having variations between individuals, and new combinations, within the species. That's why I use this formulation: We call something "good" if it meets a real need we have as an individual, as a society, or as a species.

[@zengamer321]

You should go work in a church or something.

[@ishmaelforester9825]

Ultimately pleasure and happiness is the aim, but it is understood pleasure and happiness must sometimes be forgone in the short-term to experience greater pleasure in the long-term, and to a certain degree, pain ought sometimes to be avoided in order to prepare oneself for a necessary stage of suffering later on. The principle of simply always seeking pleasure and happiness and avoiding pain and unhappiness outright is usually called hedonism, the opposite being asceticism, and both have been more or less destroyed and dispensed with in every serious and profound ethical tradition as shallow and vain in most circumstances. This is really not so much a moral as a practical understanding, though really they are the same thing. If you were to seek immediate satisfaction and fulfilment in all circumstances you would inevitably compromise your ability to attain them to a greater degree in the future, just as surely as though you never had them in mind. A simple example would be athletes who sacrifice immediate comfort and willingly suffer pain in determined pursuit of ultimate fame and glory down the road. This principle holds true of the human individual as well as the collective.

[@alvinrozon2687]

Thank you Crash Course for reminding me how much of a virtue ethicist I am and how I should never forget the goal of Eudaimonia. This is why I buy stuff from your website.

[@Yosi-Berman]

So, Aristotle says you can't learn virtue from books, but I disagree. Maybe not from philosophy books, but from narrative fiction. Literature, Film, TV, Video games, etc. You as an individual can't experience even a small amount of every kind of scenario. But in a well told story with fleshed out characters you can imagine how such an experience might come to be, and what may come from different decisions made by those characters.

[@RGapskiM]

You're right, but I think what Aristotle meant was that you can't enunciate general rules that can be just applied because moral dilemmas, in reality, are complex. Narrative fiction doesn't deal with general rules, but with specific situations, therefore it probably wasn't really what he was talking about. Also, gotta remember that in his day books weren't available in all forms, amount and variety as today.

[@Yosi-Berman]

RGapskiM of course, narrative media wasn't... let's say what it is today. i also did that thing where I confused Aristotle and Socrates, who... if i remember correctly, wasn't a fan of the theater

[@NeilSonOfNorbert]

Aristotle might also say that moral exemplars can be fictional

[@ishmaelforester9825]

Aristotle deals with narrative media specifically in his famous and much admired and cited Poetics (absolutely an essential read for anybody seriously interested in narrative media). He is indeed concerned with more general principles in the Ethics.

[@ishmaelforester9825]

Socrates infamously attacks and exiles the poets in the Republic of Plato, but there is a debate over how serious he was and how ironic he was being in the context of that particular dialogue and the point he was making in that context. Throughout the Platonic dialogues Socrates refers to Homer and the dramatists over and over, sometimes positively, sometimes negatively, depending on the point he is attempting to make and the general theme of the discussion at hand. It might be true that narrative media was not exactly what it is today, but nobody who really knows Homer deludes themselves he is any less of a master and exemplar of the art of story than he ever was. The Greek philosophers almost lacked nothing when it comes to fundamentally meditating on the issue merely through knowing their Homer.

[@jcruz821]

I don't know how, but this channel has been releasing videos that sync up with the topics in my philosophy class. just yesterday we finished up virtue ethics.

[@marinayeary2318]

Can Crash Course please do a series on math, including things like statistics, probability and experimental design? Thank you :)

[@FirstRisingSouI]

This theory is beautiful. I think I'll try to incorporate it into my Practical Utilitarianism theory.

[@FirstRisingSouI]

I didn't say conventional utilitarianism, I said my theory of Practical Utilitarianism. I'm building my own moral theory based on logic and my own thinking.

[@0744401]

I fail to see how non-redundant the word «practical» is in this context.

[@FirstRisingSouI]

That's because I haven't explained it to you. Classical Utilitarianism states that an action is good based on its consequences. But we cannot see the future; when making moral decisions we can only predict a fraction of a percent of its consequences, making Utilitarianism impractical. My version says we should focus on the things that we know, and not take unnecessary risks claiming that the ends justify the means.

[@0744401]

This is no different from classical utilitarianism. In fact, in his book, «Utilitarism» John Stuart Mill addresses what you seem to think are problem to utilitarianism in the last 2 sections of the second chapter. Objection number 9 and 10 : Objection number 9 says that we can't know the future and calculating outcomes takes time and is uncertain, so what should we do. The answer is to follow the usual rules of ordinary morality (which is, as it turns out, virtue ethics). It is utilitaristic to do so, Mill argues, because we should assume that ordinary morality has been empirically successful at producing morality in most ordinary circumstances. (Ordinary here being, of course, a code-word for «in circumstances most familiar with straight cis white able-bodied adult men») Objection number 10 worries that utilitarianism be in such a way that agents would see their own examples as exceptional cases and be more inclined to make exceptions for themselves and trust in their own judgment. Mill then relfects and conclude that this is not a significant weakness of utilitarianism when compared to competing theories, and that utilitarianism has the advantage of being able to decisively resolve conflicts of moral obligations in a satisfactory manner and is thus superior that way because we can then easily spot and sanction those who make exceptions for themselves.

[@0744401]

TL:DR : 1- Classical Utilitarianism isn't broken in the ways you see and already has the fixes you claim to bring. 2- Classical Utilitarianism is broken in other ways, and modern utilitarianism already has the fixes for it.

[@KittyCatThang]

Eudaimonia might just be a new favorite word for me. :)

[@winslowtjiptadi6359]

In some way its really similiar with Confucianism moral standards along with several eastern philosophies.. I really like how philosophy solves such deep problems with no particular answer to every situations.. That leaves us responsible to learn every aspects and apply it with our own better judgment..

[@gabriellechristophers9205]

Hank and co. Thank you for this. I needed more understanding for my assignment and have ended up watching the whole series in philosophy because it's just so dang interesting. Particular highlight was family obligation must bring that one up next with my father....... Am onto Big history now.

[@KiraGaerled]

One thing i have to rectify - Eudaimonia while it is flourishing does not necessarily involve feelings of happiness or satisfaction. In virtue ethics there is a possibility of objectively good life - that is - you can achieve eudaimonia, hearing your friends saying to you that your life is good (and being right according to the virtue ethics) while you yourself are dissatisfied with *insert whatever*. So it is an interesting example of striving for objectifiably good situation over subjective happiness; happiness is implied to follow but is not necessary.

[@plewelly]

I love this theory. This, for me, is generally the most helpful in terms of deciding how to act on the spot in ethically demanding decisions. I tend to ask myself, "what kind of person will deciding x make me?" Great coverage of the topic.

[@electrictoxic80]

People say philosophy is boring but it clearly isn't..... just imagine how much reasons and passion Aristotle put into and come up with this theory.

[@Qwynry]

this is a whole lot more wholesome than i expected it to be

[@beenz07]

The Aristotelian mean is like approaching consequentialist reasoning from a different angle. Presumably, if you are acting in accordance with the mean, you are maximizing the good. So essentially, you are kicking the can down the road, like utilitarians, when asked "how do we measure what's good?" Aristotle first responds "it doesn't matter" and then responds "In the best way possible, which tends to be between two extremes on a scale of possible actions."

[@MikeH89]

The comments on Eudaimonia really meant a lot because I'm currently working full time and studying a law degree. A lot of mornings it's hard to get up but the sense of achievement at the end of the day is great

[@wildreams]

God Bless. Non-religious, but you get it.

[@undeniablyrancid]

I hope the crash course team knows. My history teacher would show us these, in return we would just let the year fly and not pay attention much. End of the year me and my friends stayed up watching crash course to study last minute for exams. And we passed every time with 90s and above

[@emilycharlotte3042]

You seem to upload topics on the days I learn them, aren't you a godsend💛

[@sierrajamerson5637]

I literally could not parse through my wordy, anfractuous assignment on virtue ethics without this video.

[@zaubertomate665]

I love the intro. It always makes me happy :)

[@kial3831]

I love that your videos are so easy to understand when I don't understand my textbook. Thank you

[@PicklePickle7]

But what does it mean do be good in the first place? How can I be a good person? What if someone interprets an action as good while another doesn't?

[@jman-nl4st]

That was my first thought too.

[@andream8655]

yo yo You just have to do what you see is the best,and eventually you can see if that action of the past was right or not.

[@PicklePickle7]

Andrea M Vague indeed. This umm... knowing what is good "skill" will probably be will agreed upon in simple situations and not in ones that are complicated.

[@angelic8632002]

Consequentialism probably plays in here. If your actions increase the net well being and happiness of people around you and your self, then you are on the right track. Its often really hard in the spur of the moment to know what is best though, but as Aristotle points out, experience is what counts here. Looking back on your own life and learning from others mistakes.

[@RooNinful]

Question of morals. It was covered in previous episodes if you havent watched them already. There is no simple answer to ''what is good and what is bad''. It all depends on how you look on things and which school of thought you consider the best. For example kantianism or utilitarianism. As with everything in philosophy - there is no correct answer, only an opinion of an individual.

[@Ryancooperbackupacct]

There are different kinds of ethical virtue theories, not only eudaemonia. Regarding Aristotle, that's what people aspiring toward virtue should strive toward, but in my understanding there are different ways of looking at to be virtuous. One example is striving to respond in the right way toward a virtuous object in question. That could mean responding to a courageous act in the best way possible. Or even responding in a sufficient way that is non-vicious

[@DemonExecutor88]

one of my personal mottoes is "fake it till you make it" and whenever I tell someone that it is followed with, "Aristotle said that" and nobody believes me until i explain the nicomachean ethics

[@claytonhenrickson9326]

I like to own my ignorance during my growth. When I was a white belt in jiu jitsu and a rookie MMA fighter, the only folks that faked their way through were the chaff that was always separated from the wheat.

[@DemonExecutor88]

@@claytonhenrickson9326 i agree, its a good practice to own one's ignorance, its how we all grow together when there is a solid fraternal support structure in place and we can help each other out. there is very little room for arrogance when we are trying to grow :)

[@BunnyFett]

Eudaimonia is how I live my life. Although I've had way more than my fair share of hardships, I wouldn't trade my life for any other because I've worked hard to get to where I am now, and all those hardships were life lessons.

[@TheTexas1994]

It's a good thing John didn't do this episode. All he'd say is "Everything Aristotle is wrong and I hate him. You shouldn't believe anything he says as it's automatically wrong"

[@vitamindubya]

Nicolas Gleason-Boure lol that's funny

[@agente00gable]

who is john?

[@vitamindubya]

guns, John and steel

[@Pyriold]

John Greene, Hank's even more famous brother.

[@ncooty]

And he would be right.

[@alyssa.renaaa]

Trulyyyyyyy appreciate this video -Sincerely, a SMU undergrad student.

[@aaronpederson8685]

Thank you. I needed to be reminded of Aristotle's teachings.

[@samuelpalomera9390]

I know

[@libertyam8205]

bless your soul, you don’t know how much this helps me in my class. I was so lost but it all is making sense because of you. Thanks man.

[@Thunderwalker87]

Virtue theory and eudaimonia are in particular favorites of mine.

[@alexandraplantone8767]

Watched this video two years ago. It changed my life.

[@Zeliek]

The easy way to remember eudaimonia think of it as the opposite of anxiety or depression. A simple feeling of not feeling ecstatic nor bad. A more literal translation is good (=eu) spirit/being ((=daimonian) as in demon))

[@LP4ever088]

Daimon in greek means god-like, because Aristotle had a view of God as some complete cerebral being that humans could only occasionaly enjoy the state of self-reflection it was in. The demon translation comes from the christification of the antiquity philosophers by Augustine and Aquinas.

[@Zeliek]

Nicholas Wilde Well daemon,demon,daimon or whatever else you want to call is lets say the species of anything other than animals (including humans) or fauna. They are spirits big or small personified places,events or even states of being. Gods are also powerful demons. Some may take them as personified fears or emotions of "unknown" powers like the seas or love or the afterlife. The word later took the meaning of "unholy" because they (new religion) systematically tried to make any pagan spirit or concept sound worse that it was believed to be. Wiki if you know Greek is a great place to see "demons"/lower deities and how they were both humanized and a greater being.Examples Nyx (νυχτα = night) , Tartarus (both a place to keep titans and a person) and generally all primordial beings

[@LP4ever088]

I have indeed read the wiki, and what I was saying is that demon is not the right translation preciscely because of its modern connotation. Absolutely nothing in your first comment hinted at you understanding this and is the only reason I commented.

[@Zeliek]

Nicholas Wilde Connotation or not that's its root.I wasn't trying to go into a full explanation of the word and the words its made out off.You incompletely corrected me and I had to explain myself and the word daimonia a bit more. "Eu" also isn't actually translated well in modern Greek moreover to English but the word "good/well" is the closest.

[@LP4ever088]

He then goes on to say a literal translation: that is etymology. My point was merely that it is incorrect to define it in such a way as he in fact did. There is no such thing as a mnemonic point; he was giving a mnemonic for making it easier to remember, but he did so whilst also spreading misinformation, although unintentionally as I thought. However, I have already realized that he did not do what I thought he did. I didn't see him say that eu = good and daimonia = spirit being, and then simply giving an fyi that that is where demon is from. I missed the word "good" and interpreted him saying that eu = spirit/being and Daimonia = Demon, lol. Anyhow, I apollagize for my misreading, been really stressed out lately and I guess I read too fast.

[@Hayley991]

I've only been in my summer class for a week but I can already tell these video will be the reason I pass...

[@angeldude101]

That definition of eudaimonia seems to include people who test the limits in regards to not-so-good things too. A hacker who constantly tries improving his skills by breaking into systems with stronger and stronger security measures seems to match the definition without necessarily being moral.

[@sketchyAnalogies]

angeldude101 Sure, it’s Gaige and could apply to “finding success” at genocide, but in context, it mean pushing yourself to develop virtue and finding success at being virtuous. Virtue, as stated in the video, needs to be learned and reinforced, it is difficult to develop, by extremely rewarding once developed.

[@PatriciaHobbs-o5h]

Love ur vids. Help sooo much with studying

[@monte6371]

Great episode, however I would add one more aspect to the virtue theory: the idea that in order for a person to act virtuously, “in the first place he must have knowledge, secondly he must choose the acts, and choose them for their own sakes, and thirdly his action must proceed from a firm and unchangeable character”. This is a very important aspect of Aristotle's ethics that should not be overlooked

[@oscarfellows6709]

Alex Monteverde q

[@francismausley7239]

Another great theme... "...happiness is the attainment of spiritual perfections." ~ Writings of the Baha'i Faith

[@maj.peppers3332]

I'm only subbed to Crash Course for this show :P

[@Qermaq]

You should check out some of the others. They're all this awesome if you're into it.

[@maj.peppers3332]

Spectrobits Just started watching it, its dope

[@TheMogul23]

The World History ones are excellent too. Check them out.

[@elephantwarrior53]

Me too

[@danieldnbt]

A good match is Astronomy for inspiration. Those are the first two playlists I've watched.

[@Jason-gb7tt]

Thanks PewDiePie for introducing this concept to a lot of people how were just there for some meme and thanks to Hank as always

[@7Bobby7]

When you learn about philosophies and realise you've been following them (at least partially) unconsciously

[@darktoothYT107]

Didn't understand my professor at all on this topic, kant or utilitarianism. These videos really helped

[@KerenLalay]

Such a great lesson. Couldn't understand the virtue theory from my lecture material but now I do thanks to this video.

[@Nguroa]

Sounds like something I've been looking for forever.

[@wades_world22]

Your videos are such a huge help!!! They have been a great resource for helping me succeed in my Ethics college class. Thank you!

[@misterhill5598]

Aristotle is scratching at the surface. Read the Dao Te Ching book for more details on how nature flow, and how we can flow with nature.

[@chanadomo]

Wanted to do more research on this after watching Pewdiepies vid

[@purplepoet6147]

Hello fellow 19 year old!

[@ahmedaltaf12131]

@@purplepoet6147 you also came from how to be happy video? oml

[@oussamasabouh8654]

@@ahmedaltaf12131 if you want to learn more about stoïcism.see the videos of "school of life"

[@calliegilchrist4551]

rule utilitarianism and aristotle virtue theory are the best so far. taking both into considerstion as moral filters are, thus far, the best i could agree upon.

[@DuranmanX]

In Aristotle's dream world, everyone is a Mary Sue

[@FirstRisingSouI]

That's a writing term, and it includes all kinds of characteristics, not just behavior.

[@jmiquelmb]

Adrian Duran Mary Sues are normally considered boring and irreal, more of a writer fantasy than a real character. The virtous person should be more nuanced, and not so manichean, in my opinion

[@Dantick09]

Adrian Duran He takes moral exemplars in an particular virtuous habit that they have honed, no one says they are good at everything. Real people they can't be Mary Sues

[@BlankPicketSign]

I would say that a REAL person being a Mary Sue would be a wonderful thing to have in Real Life. In stories they are boring, in Reality they are helpful and useful to others! But I also want to talk about what "is" a Mary Sue. I say there are no "Mary Sue Characters", Only "Mary Sue STORIES". How can I say that? You can always tell a Mary Sue by how the Plot seems to bend toward them, how other characters behave in a way that is Not realistic for them but Advantageous for the Sue. A Mary Sue doesn't even have to BE a "perfect person" but they do have to be disruptive to the story. Mary Sues step into a story like a Black Hole, warping the space around them and sucking up all the attention and glory, only to feed their hyper dense cores and growing to consume ALL! Whether they be perfect characters, or imperfect sympathetic beings, or even an Author Insert (With all the flaws and traits of the actual Author, a flesh and blood human turned to the page), A Mary Sue can come in almost any form. Therefor it is the *Story* that is the true culprit, *not the Character.* A "perfect character" can still exist without being a Mary Sue as long as their existence in the story is not warping the plot around them or bending other characters into unrealistic shapes. Captain America or Haruhi Suzimiya are good examples of "Sue-Esque" characters but who are fleshed out and not Actually Mary Sues. Because the Stories and Characters in which they live amongst do not twist and conform to their wills, desires, or convenience; instead they react naturally and have real consequences for their actions. There are no Mary Sue Characters, Only Mary Sue Stories. =^_^= Thank you for reading~

[@spindash64]

BlankPicketSign Does that make Jesus a Mary Sue?

[@christophercanon5152]

I most agree with this one. For those questioning it I would say that this kind of morality depends on wisdom, and we're better at recognizing wisdom than morality. We can recognize people who are wise because they are happy, and they make other people happy. And when you follow the virtues of Aristotle it does make you a more fulfilled person.

[@Benioff1]

But hedonists and sociopaths are happy too though.

[@Hecatonicosachoron]

Virtue theory truly is the best of the classical theories. It's pretty much unassailable.

[@mgb360]

No theory is unassailable. If one were, everyone would simply accept it as fact. For example, I don't follow virtue theory because I don't accept the assumption that everyone will see and strive toward the same moral good.

[@Hecatonicosachoron]

It is fruitless to strive to the "same moral good". No such thing can be relevant since the particular situations where human actions, and ehtical choices, occur are extremely varied.

[@MakeMeThinkAgain]

I just posted something about this, and Socrates' notion that we need to be true to our personal daimōn... which would seem to lead to behavior that many people would not see as virtuous.

[@GregTom2]

That doesn't make it good. Example. New mathematical symbol called a "ç". 2 ç 2 = 8 1 ç 1 = 1 7 ç 2 = 5 The good thing about ç is that it will always give the result you want to get. It's literally unassailable. The moment two people don't agree on what result they want to get though, you'll find that "ç" becomes a heck of a lot less useful.

[@Hecatonicosachoron]

Mgb 360 But it isn't just a particular act that is virtuous - virtue is the practice of nurturing good habits. It is not an "everything goes" moral theory - but it is also extremely different to the christian view of morality - which is inextricalby tied to the concept of church dogma and has been extremely influential in all historically christian countries. Aristotle has completely different ideas whatsoever.

[@brendantb-]

I'm convinced Hank would be the best teacher in any class he taught

[@jakekimds]

I heard that as the "Golden Meme"

[@TorquemadaTwist]

Harambe?

[@forteastro6996]

same, lmao. I had to reread the label.

[@junesept234]

hhahahha..lol

[@FalbertForester]

Well, yes, it is, in the sense that it's a good meme, and deserves to be propagated, IMO.

[@keegster7167]

To be honest, you need a very high IQ to unserstand it. The humor is extremely subtle, and most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head.

[@erikziak1249]

This is like training our "System 2" thinking to take a bigger role alongside "System 1" thinking in everyday life. There are some pitfalls here as well as in some of the arguments presented in the video. But I agree with the general concept, so I am not going to nitpick them just for the sake of starting an argument.

[@johannaschramm1558]

This is crazy, Crashcours always makes a video about something exactly when I am learning this at school Thanks for being awesome !!

[@KarstenOkk]

Churning the Philosophy episodes like a champ.

[@maimoonahira2024]

Thankyou crashcourse I badly need to understand it❤

[@miaoye26]

man! this is so much more pleasant than listening 8 hours of the original book through audible

[@thepremeddiaries5877]

This is so much better and less confusing than actually reading Aristotle straight from my ethics book

[@Orion225]

Currently reading his Nicomachean Ethics. This video really helped me to understand his ideas better.

[@ShawnRavenfire]

Aristotle makes more sense than all the other philosophers on here put together.

[@therongjr]

Shawn Ravenfire John really hates on Aristotle a lot, but he certainly improved on Plato a great deal, IMHO.

[@eneses93]

It's starting to seem that for some time now philosophy has been evolving only to become harder to understand, but not necessarily more useful.

[@jhonjacson798]

actually, other people have pointed this out in the comments, but his ideas on virtue is kind of circular, how do you know good, through virtue, how do you recognize virtue, how do you recognize virtue, by living a life of eudaimonia, how do you live a life of eudaimonia, by being virtuous. This is the real problem with Aristotilian ethics, in fact from what I've heard... it isn't even really an ethics, according to my teacher (who granted might be wrong I havn't read arristotle myself) the way that some people are virtuous and some aren't is simply that some people are raised right. Yeah, as in you are just born a good person due to your circumstances, people born under the wrong circumstances can't really be virtuous (since virtue is more about your intentions and thoughts then your actions). It's a very rudimentary form of ethics that relies more on intuition then anything else.

[@rav781]

Totally agree. For years I'm in such an awe of his thoughts everytime I hear them.

[@GregTom2]

No he doesn't. He's just telling you what you want to hear unlike the other philosophers. The whole point of ethics is to know what is the right thing to do from the wrong thing to do. Virtue ethics don't do that at all. They're the worst ethical system of all because they aren't an ethical system.

[@handynas6529]

Right View, Right Intention, Right Speech, Right Actions, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, Right Concentration. The Noble Eightfold Paths. The Middle Path.

[@gailcbull]

Is it just me, or does virtue theory seem like the existentialist's ethical system of choice. It seems that the state of eudaimonia and existentialism's view of making the right choice for yourself based on how you understand the situation should work quite nicely together.

[@ShaedeReshka]

Good eye. They are certainly compatible theories, and generally more functional than the ethical theories that lay between them. Ultimately, though, virtue ethics needs some modification for be compatible with existentialism. Primarily, existentialism is the broad rejection of purpose, which is why it's fundamentally an atheistic position (yes, it technically grew out of a fundamentalist Christian theory, but the term doesn't apply to that). Virtue ethics is founded on some key assumptions about the way people "should" be. So it ultimately allows far less variety of action than existentialism, which gives the individual complete reign over that. This doesn't mean that you can't combine them, of course. It just means that there is some modification being done on both ends.

[@mr.o8539]

like butter on corn

[@caseyhinson28]

My life is clouded. Glad this stuff is not lost to time. Few indeed