[MD] Virtue, Superoirity and excellence.

[Platt Holden]

> [Ron]
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue
> > 
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=virtue
> > 
> > search the terms as they refer to Greek thought
> > if it is not enough. But I think you will find similar
> > definitions.

[Platt] 
> In view of the references you cite, how do you interpret this quote?
> 
> "To answer him you have to go all the way back to fundamental meanings of
> what is meant by morality and in this culture there aren't any fundamental
> meanings of morality. There are only old traditional social and religious
> meanings and these don't have any real intellectual base. They're just 
> traditions." (Lila, 7)
> 
> To me it appears Pirsig dismisses what the Greeks had to say about 
> morality. Either that or in his opinion 1) "this culture" ignores what the
> Greeks said, or 2) what the Greeks said wasn't intellectual.
> 
> What do you think he means?
> 
> Ron:
> Good question, by way of support from his conclusion that arête is
> Quality,
> I would say that 1) "this culture" ignores what the Greeks said.
> 
> "this culture" values objectivity (what Bo calls intellect) more than
> "excellence". In fact it mistakes objectivity with excellence. You had
> your finger on it Platt, This is where Academia splits with wisdom.
> This when intellectualism functions without social excellence.
> If the intellectual level emerges from the social then it seems
> reasonable that the highest social patterns would be the basis
> for a Quality intellectual pattern, ie excellence per the Greek
> definition. Which is what Pirsig proposes with Quality.

Interesting you should mention the shortcoming of Academia as valuing  
objectivity more than excellence because the last sentence of the article 
Arlo and others praised is: "Ethics, no less than science, aims at 
objectivity." 

Your point is well taken, Ron.

Platt