Some borrowed musings and reflections on the concept - (and I will try to change and update these as the thinking moves along) Ideas, quotes and off the wall input are welcome! Drop me a note eh . . .
Practical Wisdom (PW) and Moral Virtue (MV)
MV is a necessary condition of PW. You can be good at means end reasoning without MV but you will neither perceive the situation you are in correctly nor desire the right end. Aristotle calls the person who can reason well to get an end that is not rightly desired clever but not wise. One awkward case is the weak-willed person, as the weak-willed person lacks MV but they do desire rightly. Given that they fail though to carry out what they rightly desire the weak-willed person must also lack PW. It doesn't seem that they should be called clever either but rather conflicted. The weak-willed person is very unlikely to be good at making long term plans as they will not have consistent desires. PW is a necessary condition of MV, as part of being morally virtuous is (i) listening to what practical reason tells you about what a particular situation is like so that you can know what it is appropriate to feel and (ii) being able to carry out your good intentions through effective means-end reasoning.
Sent to me by 2Lt Calvin G.W. Sandiford Esq., BA, LL.B(Hons) LL.M
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phronesis
Phronesis (Greek: φρόνησις) in Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics is the virtue of moral thought, usually translated "practical wisdom", sometimes as "prudence".
Aristotle distinguishes between two intellectual virtues: sophia and phronesis. Sophia (usually translated "wisdom") is the ability to think well about the nature of the world, to discern why the world is the way it is (this is sometimes equated with science); sophia involves deliberation concerning universal truths. Phronesis is the ability to think about how and why we should act in order to change things, and especially to improve one's own life. Aristotle says that phronesis is not simply a skill, however, as it involves not only the ability to decide how to achieve a certain end, but also the ability to reflect upon and determine that end (this latter point is denied by some commentators, who contend that Aristotle considers the desired end, eudaimonia, to be given, such that phronesis is merely the ability to achieve that end).
Gaining phronesis requires maturation, in Aristotle's thought:
| “ | Whereas young people become accomplished in geometry and mathematics, and wise within these limits, prudent young people do not seem to be found. The reason is that prudence is concerned with particulars as well as universals, and particulars become known from experience, but a young person lacks experience, since some length of time is needed to produce it (Nichomachean Ethics 1142 a). | ” |
Phronesis is concerned with particulars, because it is concerned with how to act in particular situations. One can learn the principles of action, but applying them in the real world, in situations one could not have foreseen, requires experience of the world. For example, if one knows that one should be honest, one might act in certain situations in ways that cause pain and offense; knowing how to apply honesty in balance with other considerations and in specific contexts requires experience.
Aristotle holds that having phronesis is both necessary and sufficient for being virtuous; because phronesis is practical, it is impossible to be both phronimos and akratic.
Aristotle's importance to mediæval European thought led phronesis to be included as one of the four cardinal virtues.
Bent Flyvbjerg, in his book Making Social Science Matter, has argued that instead of trying to emulate the natural sciences, the social sciences should be practiced as phronesis. Phronetic social science [1] focuses on four value-rational questions: (1) Where are we going? (2) Who gains and who loses, by which mechanisms of power? (3) Is this development desirable? (4) What should we do about it?