Respond to all discussions. At Least 50 words. You must end with the ethical question related to the discussions for each one.

Respond to all discussions. At Least 50 words. You must end with the ethical question related to the discussions for each ones

Give response 1:

While examining Aristotle's text in book 6 I feel as if he feels our thoughts are more important than our actions, having that our actions are influenced by our thought. A person's thought sort of tells us everything we need to know about them. As example given by Professor Jackson in class on Monday, "if you know what drives someone (there thought), you can predict what they want to do." I feel that this example does justice to Aristotle's text because it provides a demonstration that knowing someone's thought is more important than their action. To go further into thought, we are given that there are different virtues of thought. The virtues of thought deal with the rational part of the soul. Aristotle states that there are five states in which the soul grasps the truth in its affirmation; these are craft, scientific knowledge, prudence, wisdom and understanding. (Aristotle, 103) Of these different states of thought we have, I find prudence to be the most interesting. While researching others opinions of the text, I like the opinion of text analyser Donal Roche. He explains Prudence to be  "the intellectual virtue that perfects reasoning in regard to decision making in the realm of human action." I like this take on prudence because it demonstrates the in debt meaning on Aristotle's virtue "prudence". The definition given Roche shows that for someone to have the virtue of prudence, they must perfect reasoning in regards to decision making. This can be further interpreting that one can not claim to have all virtues of thought if they are not using there thought and reasoning when making a decision. Thus proving that thought is more important than action, because thought is what drives your actions. 

Give respond 2:

The relationship between thought and action is unique and precise; without thought, we wouldn't be able to preform good actions. What I mean, by this, is that in order for us to carry out some action, we have to have thought about it first. It all serves like a natural chain of events, where the thought occurs and that leads to action. Aristotle elaborates on the nature of this chain of events:

"Now the principle of an action--the source of motion, not the goal--is decision. But the principle of decision is desire and goal-directed reason. That is why decision requires understanding and thought, and also a state / of character..." (Aristotle, 103)

Beyond thought, reason, desire, and understanding additionally play into this system of action. Aristotle almost mirrors what Tolstoy says in regards to the human body:

"Our body is a machine for living. It is organized for that, it is its nature"

Beyond Tolstoy, Aristotle's conception of the mind in this regard reminds me of Deleuze and Guattari's conception of the mind under capitalism through desiring-production. To summarize their findings, Deleuze and Guattari reject the Freudian conception of the unconscious as a theatre, instead offering the unconscious as a model similar to a machine, interconnected with other desiring machines, such as the state and capital. Admittedly, Aristotle's reality is not too different from our own, as systems of capital and the state did indeed exist in Ancient Greek life. Aristotle's chain of command could serve as the code for our desiring machines 

Another example of this is Aristotle's discussion of the telos, or, the ends of every action. As Prof. Hoerth outlined in class, all actions ought to be preformed with ends in mind. This is fundamentally a statist conception, as the state demands that every action we perform must be done with some intent in mind. This idea is embedded in the political life every individual tries to lead; every action must be performed with some intent in mind for the betterment of society. But where does happiness fit into the equation? Fundamentally, it cannot, as there is no more room for happiness when we are performing for the betterment of the state. 

What, however, can be taken away from this? I am putting a lot of information down, but it might seem abstract. What I am saying is that our system of thought is connected in large ways to the state and capital; the entire conception of the unconscious fundamentally rests upon that of the two. This might sound pessimistic; that our entire conception of the self is based on political systems that we have no control over, but there is hope in this. Freedom, as Michel Foucault outlines, is not a state of being, but rather a state of becoming. We must shed ourselves from the yoke of globalized systems of cruel capital and expunge from our personalities the influence of the state. 

Give Respond 3:

I believe that the nature of this relationship all comes down to character within yourself, because they all is with the nature of the soul. Virtues is being a well human being and it probably starts in the soul, then thought then action so that's how I look at it.

I think that thoughts are more important than actions, because thoughts have incredible power to affect your life in ways and also lives of others. Your thoughts and explanations of scenarios influence or persuade your belief and then lastly your action.  My coach once told us that, "Whether you think you can or cannot, you're right." In other words he said that it means whatever you think is what you get and I took that and ran with it. This way or reason why it should be that thought is more important than action. You can control what you think no matter what it is can't nobody else take that from you, because the most important and pervasive source of input is you. Your mind or thoughts can be your best friend or your worst enemy ever, if you believe or have positive thoughts that you will be doing great and if you have negative then you will be doing bad because those translate to good or bad actions.

When we think an action is more important than thought it is because thoughts is like processing it but action is what get the problems solved.  Actions or physically capable of doing things unlike how thoughts is. For example, you can think of eating because you are hungry, but you won't be able to eat unless you physically do the action of you eating in order not to be hungry any more. Basically thoughts can visualize solutions and everything else, but when it comes down to it actions will change the world.

Give respond 4:

Thoughts could be seen as more important than actions because a person's thoughts are going to be what lead to their actions later on. Some thoughts will be bad and are ignored so each person will follow the best course of action that they determine. This is why I think that actions are more important than thoughts. Remembering that the highest good is happiness, we are not going to get happiness by simply thinking about it. Maybe for some people they might get pleasure out of contemplation but this is not long term happiness. Actions of doing things that may not bring immediate happiness but long term happiness later are the highest good. Therefore virtues must be action and we cannot have virtues which exist only inside of our heads. Happiness can be found by doing virtuous actions with temperance and for their own good and not with outside incentives. It is not to say that thought is unimportant, it is very important that we find which action is the best action. Wisdom helps us to know what is best for a given situation, our intuition will give us an instinctual reaction, and prudence to carry out those thoughts. Deaton says that "Cowardly, gluttonous, lazy people are usually dissatisfied with themselves" (Deaton 40). Lazy people are those that do not do many actions and actions are the carrying out of our thoughts that lead to happiness. An excess of action or thought will be vicious the same way that a deficiency of them would be vicious. The actions would need to be carried out in view the community in order to encourage others to be virtuous and to involve oneself with them. Laws cannot encourage virtue because then it is no longer virtue. It is also too vague to be easily made into a law so to be virtuous we must desire the greater good.

Give respond 5:

Whenever Aristotle is talking about the differences between the virtues of thought/intellect and the virtues of action I think that he sees them as being of "The origin of action-its efficient, not its final cause-is choice a desire and reasoning with a view to and end. This is why choice cannot exist either without reason and intellect or without a moral state; for good action and its opposite cannot exist without a combination of intellect and character" From this quote I see it as Action must have a thought or intellect to them to even begin in the first place if there is not thought then how does an action take into effect because Zell did not just give people his organs without having any thought or idea no he had a reason of why he was doing these things from his virtues thoughts that created the virtuous action.  However intellect by itself I believe is something entirely different as Aristotle says " Now this kind of intellect and of truth is practical, of the intellect which is contemplative, not practical nor productive." I take this as saying that if you have a virtuous thought but never really committed or acted upon it is almost useless because what is the point of thinking something and never really doing anything about it as someone saying that they care about saving the environment and recycling however never recycle themselves a way of actions speak louder then words. so personally to me I think that actions are more important then thoughts because no matter what someone's says and thinks the true test to see if they believe in something fully is the actions that they take whenever the opportunity arises for them to take action.

Give Response 6:

When talking about the relationship between thoughts, actions, and virtues, there is a lot of room for miscommunication and disagreement about what the connection between these things really is. In book VI of Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle says, "Now the principle of an action - the source of motion, no the goal - is decision" (Aristotle 103). I feel that here is where Aristotle is really making a connection between thoughts, actions, and virtues. When we think about something, we don't necessarily have a goal or intention in mind for an action to follow. There are, though, thoughts where we do have a plan and think about an action or intention that we have for the future action. This is where our thoughts and actions connect. Lastly, our virtues come into play by the way that we think and the actions that we take. I feel that virtues may be more realted to thoughts than actions in some sense, but in others actions do play more into our character than our thoguht do. If someone was to speak to someone else with the intention of making them feel better, but it only made the person think about the thing upsetting them more, then I would say this is where there thoughts are more virtuous than their actions. They had good intentions behind what they were doing, but it wasn't executed well. On the other hand, as we've heard plenty of times, actions do speak louder than words. I someone says they would stand up for their friend in a fight, but then when it comes to the actual scenario they don't support the other person, their actions are truly speaking louder than their words. I think that this says more about a persons character and virtues by how they acted rather than how they spoke or thought. I think that this can relate back to book I of Nicomachean Ethics in the sense that when you are being virtuous you are reaching towards the highest good. If a person takes their thoughts, acts on them in a virtuous way, that proves that they are working towards the highest good of being a virtuous person in the end. Overall, all things tie together and thoughts, actions, and virtues are what make us each who we are.

Give Response 7:

I believe thoughts and actions are connected, and that they both influence one another. Certain thoughts provoke certain actions. For example, when you think, "I'm going to fail this test," you either freak yourself out so much you study really hard for the test, or you freak yourself out so much you don't study at all.  I believe Aristotle had a similar belief. In Book VI, he states, "Now the principle of an action-- the source of motion, not the goal-- is decision. But the principle of decision is desire and goal-directed reason. That is why decision requires understanding and thought, and also a state / of character; for acting well or badly requires both thought and character" (Aristotle, 103). By this, I think he is saying that choices can not be made without thought. We either act well or badly depending on our thoughts and character. I also believe Aristotle believed action to be more important than thought. He states, "Thought by itself moves nothing, but goal-directed thought concerned with action <moves us>" (Aristotle, 103). I think people could believe actions are more important than thought because actions get you results, thoughts don't. On the other hand, people could believe thoughts are more important than actions because without thoughts, there would be no actions. I think this ties into what Aristotle says in Book II about virtue of character. Aristotle starts this book off by saying, "Virtue, then, is of two sorts, virtue of thought and virtue / of character. Virtue of thought arises and grows mostly from teaching; that is why it needs and experience and time" (Aristotle, 21). Then, in paragraph 4, he says, "Similarly, then, we become just / by doing just actions, temperate by doing temperate actions, brave by doing brave actions" (Aristotle, 21). I think this is another example of why actions are more important than thoughts. You become just by performing actions and you work towards the greater good. 

Give Response 8:

In book 6 of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle discusses the importance of ‘Virtues of Thought’ and ‘Virtues of Action’. He states, “ Now the principle of an action - the source of motion, not the goal - is decision. But the principle of decision is desire and goal-directed reason. That is why decision requires understanding and thought, and also a state / of character; for acting well or badly requires both thought and character.”(Aristotle, 103)  In this Aristotle is saying that thoughts and actions go hand in hand when it comes to virtues or virtuous acts. If you just think about doing something virtuous then that doesn’t count. Like we have discussed previously, you have to act virtuously onto or towards others for you to be able to build your virtues. Aristotle says,” Thought by itself, moves nothing…”(Aristotle, 103) You have to actually practice virtue and pursue the actions in order to be a virtuous person. Likewise goes for actions, you need thought with it. In Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle goes on to say, “...since acting well is the goal… decision is either understanding / combined with desire or desire combined with thought; and this is the sort of principle that human being is.”(Aristotle, 103) He is saying that you need to have a goal in mind or an understanding of something before you act on it. Virtues of thought and virtues of action have to both be present for something to be a complete practice of virtue. We might think that actions are more important than thought because you can have consequences or benefits based on your actions. People can think about doing anything but it doesn’t matter unless they actually do it. On the other hand, we could tend to think that thoughts are more important than actions because our mind is a very powerful thing. Like we have all heard before “ we can accomplish anything we set our mind to”. This can relate to Zell because he had to think about getting his organs removed before he followed through with it. His end goal was to help other people and by doing the action he reached that end goal. 

Give Response 9:

Well, for the a good part of Nicomachean ethics, the drive of what makes a good person was in the character of the individual, which was led by action. The way for someone to become a virtuous person would found in the actions performed, being in between excess and deficiency. The problem is so far is the fact that we don't know where those virtuous actions are derived from. We just collectively agreed that some actions are good and some are bad. That is the "Virtues of Action." In book 6, there is more of a discussion on the intent, rather than action on what makes a person virtuous, an aspect of the "why" in one's character, because if we just base all the virtues in thought, "we would know nothing more about, for instance, the medicines to be applied to the body, if we were told we must apply the ones that medical science prescribes and in the way that the medical scientist applies them" (Aristotle, 101). This relates to the relationship between thoughts and actions because you can truly know someone's future actions by their intent, and through that you can figure weather someone is virtuous or not.

     This is what I (somewhat) got out of book 6 - Virtues are the aspects of someone's character that is acted within the polis, may that be through courage, temperance, etc. Wisdom is the understanding of the excesses and deficiencies of that virtue. And prudence is the action made to fix the virtue in light of the understanding through the wisdom. Hopefully this is the nature of the relationship for Aristotle.

     Many would think that thought is better than action because through thoughts many people can change and their actions are the fruits that come out of those thoughts. That's what many would consider what conviction through faith is; it's a change of heart and through that, the actions come from that. Many would think that actions are better than thought because through that, you can know how determined someone is to do the right thing. A coward can know the right thing to do, but if he does nothing to show the virtue,  he's as vicious as the people who's actions he allows in his silence. This relates to Zell Kravinski (because I'm an asshole) because he knew that at least for him, that the right thing to do was to help even the least of people in society, and his virtue was to what extent he took to help people.

Give Response 10:

Virtues of Thought and Virtues of Action are, in my opinion, two very different things. Thoughts are things in our head that we sometimes can't control while actions are well things we can control. Performing an action is what defines a person not thinking something. This is true with courage and bravery. When put in a very serious situation the way someone acts or the thing someone does is what everyone will remember and know that person by. It defines who that person is. In life or death situations it defines the person as brave or cowardly depending on what they do under pressure. If a brave and a cowardly person were put in the same situation, both would think cowardly and brave thoughts simultaneously, but none of those thoughts matter because it's the action that makes the person who they are. With Zell Kravinsky, his actions were very virtuous and helped out a lot of people. The actions are what make Zell Kravinsky who he is today. There's a debate which we have had in class about if he was crazy or not. Or if he was doing what he did for personal gain rather than for the good of the world. Regardless of what side you stand on, you cannot deny that what he did was virtuous and selfless. Aristotle says "...full virtue cannot be acquired without prudence." A prudent person is able to detect what is good for them and bad for them and can easily deliberate the 2. This is a more deep dive into thoughts and actions. Aristotle says that good thoughts lead to good actions and being prudent is the only way to do good actions. So, you must have prudence in order to figure out what is good and what is bad for you, and these thoughts lead directly into the actions you take.