The Aspects of Virtue

In Western Philosophy, we have the 4 Cardinal Virtues: Prudence, Justice, Temperance, and Fortitude. You find this in Christianity, and in Stoicism, old and modern.

I never really got how this made any sense at all. What is the principle behind this? There seems to be none at all. What makes them 'cardinal'? Supposedly that they are necessary to practice all other virtue or morality. But what the hell does Justice have to do with that? Temperance and Fortitude seem to just be the same thing - self-control - so why note the same thing twice?

I looked deeper into them, though, and reformulated them, into what I now call the Aspects of Virtue. Credit goes to John Vervaeke for inspiring these thoughts, but they are ultimately my own.

Overview

I have come to believe that these things are not virtues. These 4 things explain how virtue exists, or manifests into activity. Were they meta-virtues, or the virtues of having virtues, then they would be able to explain themselves - and they cannot. Instead, I call them the 'aspects of virtue'. They are the manners in which a virtue is held and manifested by an individual person. When we note a deficiency of virtue, it may only be in a partial deficiency, existing in one aspect or another, rather than a simple case of lack.

To invoke ideas from Ancient Greece, albeit perhaps with small modifications, or differing framing, these aspects are named entirely in Greek, based on classic accounts of the cardinal virtues.

The aspects are: Sophia, Phronesis, Sophrosyne, Enkratia.

Sophia and Phronesis are two aspects of Wisdom. This will be explained more fully, but it is necessary to understand what I mean by this: To quickly summarise, Wisdom is understanding of the good, analogous to how Knowledge is understanding of the real.

By contrast, we have Sophosyne and Enkratia, which are the ways in which virtue enters into action.

These cannot be said to be virtues themselves, because they cannot be explained as a combination of all 4. For example, if we take either of the aspects of wisdom, Sophia or Phronesis; what Sophia or Phronesis would be required to have Sophia or Phronesis? Nothing other than the one you were speaking of in the first place. If one needs understanding to have understanding, this entails an infinite regress of understanding or mental activity.

Sophia

Sophia is an intellectual, or abstracted understanding of value; namely, of good and bad, at all levels and in all its facets. Sophia is the kind of understanding of goodness and badness that a person can speak about to others, and thus teach, and how we consciously judge our own actions and that of others. It is the matter of Philosophy, or Philosophia. It may be tempting to simply call it 'Knowledge', because of its effable and somewhat intellectual nature, but looking more closely, its true nature is ultimately one that is concerned with value. The sort of thing that goes on in discussions of morality or ethics is an activity in pursuit of Sophia.

Phronesis

Phronesis has been called 'practical wisdom' by convention. This is because it is by nature practiced - it is the wisdom that naturally enters into action, and the wisdom that identifies the right action and abstention in the moment. Phronesis is the wisdom of the intuition, seen directly, embodied, more liveable by the individual, beyond words.

Sophrosyne

This virtue has been translated as 'Temperance'. I depart strongly from what tends to be meant by this word, and in fact use it elsewhere for something completely different.

Sophrosyne is when we feel the urge to do what is right, and don't feel the urge to do what is wrong. We like the good, dislike the bad, don't like the bad, and don't dislike the good.

The feelings of Sophrosyne are those generated by values, estimations of good and bad, right and wrong, some kind of understanding. Thus, feelings like hunger, thirst, sexual desire, and physical pain are not involved at all in Sophrosyne. No understanding generates this feelings, nor can it directly change them in any way.

Enkratia

The best English translation for this word is 'self-control', or more literally 'in-control-ness' (en-krat-ia).

Enkratia is when we do what's right, even when feel the urge not to. It's when abstain from doing wrong, even when we feel the urge to do so.

Sophia vs. Phronesis

Both are aspects of wisdom - but how do we clearly understand their differences? 

The advantage of Sophia is that it is amenable to speech. It is what permits us to perform wise action on a large scale, in ways that are not amenable to the instinctual human life, and to coordinate the wisdom of multiple people, and have it held in common. Sophia is also the beginning of the Spiritual Path. However, the problem of Sophia is age old and well known: To merely understand Goodness, in all its facets and kinds, does not entail that one will act according to it. One may have Sophia, but be a complete hypocrite. One may have Sophia, and consciously recognise that one is not living according to one's understanding. Sophia is knowing what one ought to do and why. And one may know what one ought to do, have true Sophia, and this will remain the case whether one does it or not. The one who knows it is foolish to smoke and drink an entire bottle of wine per day does not become wrong that these habits are bad simply because they continue to smoke and drink. As a final note: This, and everything else I say on this blog, is an example of Sophia (if indeed it is correct!).

The advantage of Phronesis is complementary, unsurprisingly. It is a more direct understanding, beyond words and concepts, of good and bad, that lends itself directly to action. It is gained by experience alone. Although the conditions for such experience may be engineered, the actual learning itself cannot. As such, Phronesis lacks the strengths of Sophia: It cannot be taught, it does not lend itself to explicit explanation, and it cannot function interpersonally beyond a small number - the number that is instinctually comprehensible to a person. While its grounded nature is a strength, it also entails that examples of Phronesis may not necessarily be integrated into the artifices of civilisation.

A person with Sophia but no Phronesis may have great insights into philosophy, politics, science, and epistemology. However, they would screw up their personal relationships, treat others poorly, and do what they know to harm them and others despite themselves. 

A person with Phronesis but no Sophia lives well, and always know what they and others ought to do in a particular situation, but their intuitions seem to come from nowhere. They can only tell others what they think is best, and merely insist upon the right way. Nothing of their understanding is ever transmitted, and so others receive little immediate justification to believe they are wise.

Sophrosyne vs. Enkratia

'Theoretically', we would only need Sophrosyne - simply feeling the correct way all the time. However, it should be immediately obvious how unrealistic this is as an expectation. To function entirely on Sophrosyne, we would have to be fully, intuitively, omniscient. Reality requires us to develop and change, and for this we must do what we do not feel like doing naturally, as well as not doing what we naturally feel like doing.

The Spiritual Path & The Cultivation of Virtue

When we seek to cultivate virtue on purpose, we begin with Sophia, for only with such understanding can we seek with such deliberation. 

With this sophic understanding, complete or not, we seek to practice it in an enkratic way; doing what we understand to be right, taking perspectives, despite how unnatural they feel to us, and despite our urge not to, or to do otherwise, and abstaining from doing what we understand to be wrong, throwing off perspectives, despite how unnatural this may feel to us, and despite our urge to continue.

As we do this, we grow used to these actions, and our resistance fades. In this sense, it becomes sophrosynically easier to practice; though it is still a deliberate choice.

Then, after enough time, we will see for ourselves, in real experience why the thing we understood sophically is wise, and finally gain a phronetic understanding, making the virtue 'complete', and fully natural as a way of living and behaving.

It should be noted that the final two stages, of sophrosyne and phronesis, are frequently simultaneous. The feeling comes as the intuitive understanding does, and vice versa.

It must also be remembered that this progression is exclusively the spiritual path of cultivation. Many people in this world display virtue. Notably, there are many people who display virtue in every way imaginable except for Sophia. There are those who are virtuous without the sophic understanding. This is still good, as virtue is, but leaves such people unable to transmit such wisdom, nor to coordinate with others on its basis.