As we discussed the motivations behind actions in class the other day, and eventually made the transition to discussing universals and particulars as they relate to knowledge, I began to consider the connections between the two. It was established that particulars always involve perceptual knowledge. "Perceptual knowledge" seems as if it could be synonymous with "belief", so from here on I will use the two terms interchangeably.
In some of the latest chapters of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle begins, in his discussion of the incontinent person, to conjecture as to whether actions are motivated by belief or by action. Seeing as actions always involve a particular case (i.e. event, instance, etc.), it seems logical to assume that they would also involve particular knowledge (belief). Therefore, could it be said that, because of their 'particular' nature, actions are always motivated by belief, and cannot be controlled by universal knowledge?
Comments are quite welcome. Show some blog-love.
2 comments:
While I understand the conjecture presented, I do have to disagree that all action can be placed purely on particular knowledge and situations. In some cases it is possible for universal knowledge to override particular knowledge. For example, I have recently quit smoking cigarettes. About 3 days in I was saying to myself "Man, I've gone a while, I think I've earned it" this was the particular that led me to want to smoke. However, the universal knowledge "Smoking is bad, and if you smoke this one you'd be going against your quitting" took over and led me away from that cigarette. Thus while in some cases particulars (beliefs) can motivate action, the universal knowledge can override said particulars.
But Sami, I think Sean might respond that reason why this universal is so persuasive is because you have particularized it, extended the power of the universal to an individual case.
Post a Comment