On page 142 Taylor discusses the fact that temperance does not counteract sloth. The slothful do not seem to be in excess of anything that a temperate person would be able to control. However, Taylor does note that Casey finds the slothful to be intemperate in a way. I agree, but argue for this point in a different way than Casey.
Temperate seems to be defined by Taylor and by many as a sort of restraint. The temperate will be able to control indulgences and excesses. While I agree with this notion, I feel there is more to being temperate than this. The temperate are supposed to be moderate. Perhaps this is just my understanding, but I find that moderation goes two ways. Not only is one not supposed to indulge in excess, but also one should find a happy medium. The moderate will not indulge in extremes of either nature, which includes not doing anything as well. It is often said that too much or too little of anything is a bad thing. I find that the truly temperate must engage in activity and relationships and the world in a moderate fashion, which involves not only avoidance of the excessive but also avoidance of that which is slothful.
In this way, the slothful are intemperate, and temperance is able to correct for cloth in a way Taylor did not find. The temperate will find something wrong with such inactivity and seek to engage the world in moderation. So long as we are considering temperance in the general way, it seems that the virtue covers sloth as well as the other vices Taylor lists.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I would again have to agree with Christa, it does seem that the slothful are lacking temperance in a way that Taylor does not acknowledge. Instead of the slothful lacking temperance, she states that the slothful lack anger and courage.
While i do agree that the slothful lack some sort of motivation which may rely on courage; I do not feel that anger would be of any help to the slothful. In order for anger to be helpful for an individual Taylor makes the clarification; "neither anger nor revulsion could operate on the side of reason unless the agent had some grip on what is more of less worthwhile for him to engage in" (145).
The slothful see everything as not worth engaging in and this would make it impossible for them to have a grip on what is worthwhile for him to engage in. Thus anger would be of no positive use towards the slothful for they lack reason and sound judgement on what is worthwhile. Instead it would seem that anger would be a vice to the slothful and not a virtue.
I agree with Christa's statement that when properly defined, temperance can be used to counteract slothfulness. However, I also believe that Taylor is right in her book by stipulating that courage to some degree is necessary to overcome slothfulness.
Firstly, temperance. I agree with Christa when she stated that temperance involves moderation, though I would like to add that I feel temperance also involves some amount of prudence. The prudence involved in temperance might also dictate the temperate person to find "a happy medium," but might do so because that is the proper thing to do, not simply for the sake of moderation itself. In trying to overcome slothfulness, temperance might be guided by prudence in engaging in activity because it is the right thing to do for a flourishing self; not simply for the sake of moderation.
While I feel temperance is necessary in overcoming the vice of slothfulness, I also believe that Taylor is correct in saying courage is necessary for this effect, if for no other reason, to initiate one into being temperate.
Take a slothful person as Taylor describes one: sees no purpose in life, and sees no activity as worth the effort of engaging in it. Given this situation, it seems understandable that one who is slothful wouldn't be too inclined to see temperance (or changing their slothful state) as a worthwhile pursuit. In order to change this perspective, it would likely take courage on the part of the slothful to even desire to be temperate, let alone to actually be temperate. So while temperance might be how the slothful can escape their state, courage might be the middleman, the method for the slothful arrive at such a saving state.
I agree with both Christa and Taylor on the subject of alleviating sloth; I agree with Christa in that temperance can help the slothful, but I also agree with Taylor in that the slothful also need courage to defeat the vice, even if it only serves to start them on achieving temperance.
Post a Comment