Why is phronesis and sophia two different things? Why do we make a distinction between thinking and doing? Isn't contemplation a kind of action one can take? Can't we be prudent with regards to the way we think? Why couldn't sophia feed into phronesis and phronesis into sophia?
The main problem is that the object of phronesis is the changing world, yet the object of sophia is the unchanging world. Yet doesn't knowledge of what's unchanging help "frame" what changes so we can predict the future? Why doesn't phronesis come with "nous" the way sophia has both nous and episteme built into it?
I think there has to be an underlying symmetry between sophia and phronesis if we are to take the belief that the world is intelligible and thus wisdom is possible. Isn't the art of reasoning about how to go from the universal to the particular and back to the universal? Then phronesis and sophia ought to be two sides of the same coin.
It sounds like there should be a shared underlying essence or structure here that hasn't been investigated. Aristotle describes both the political life and the contemplative life as the highest ends of human activity, but there can only be one HIGHEST end. Maybe they're both subsets of some kind of energeia?
 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
|
>The main problem is that the object of phronesis is the changing world, yet the object of sophia is the unchanging world. Yet doesn't knowledge of what's unchanging help "frame" what changes so we can predict the future? Why doesn't phronesis come with "nous" the way sophia has both nous and episteme built into it?
I think bk. 1 ch. 3 plays into this, re: the lack of precision that can be expected for understanding political life, which the Ethics is a prelude to. As an example that might point to the differences, consider how different it is to know that sex between any creatures leads for the most part to reproduction, and knowing what effects there might be for putting a certain policy into law or to know whether killing so and so on a battlefield will cause the enemy to rout or at least not mess with you. In the latter cases, things could be otherwise, it's not predictable in the same way as knowing that a rock thrown in the air will fall. Bk. 2 of the Rhetoric seems like a good example of what the practice of phronesis has in mind, where you can figure by experience that young people are usually like this, old people usually like that, and so you adjust how you talk to them on those grounds, but always at a risk since they're not universally like this or that.
Maybe as a further example of the difference, let's say you have a friend whose spouse dies. What do you say/do for them? Under sophia, you'd apparently treat all such occasions the same way, but, knowing people, there's going to be friends we know for whom the regulated response is going to not work for. Phronesis is what would apparently let you see the differences in each circumstance and discern how to treat them as they come, so, e.g., this guy is usually gregarious and extroverted, so spending time with them is a good idea, but this other guy keeps to themselves and doesn't want too much reaching out, etc.
It's weird that phronetic wisdom and sophic wisdom is treated with such a stark dichotomy, isn't it? For some reason, only sophia is given a "perceptive" component, in the form of nous, while phronesis works all on its own to navigate the vicissitudes of life. Yet phronesis, given that it deals with what is changing, needs to be able to meet the needs of new and pressing circumstances.
I always imagined that sophia provided the "rules" while phronesis dealt with the manipulation of said rules. For example, how does Aristotle treat justice in Book V? It begins with universal law, which serves as the "scaffolding" for justice. Yet, Aristotle argues that universal laws need to be adjusted for the situation. What would be capable of recognizing when the universal law fails to hold neatly to the situation? Probably something like phronesis working in tandem with nous.
This causes another question to arise. Why does universal law fail in the first place? Perhaps it wasn't as universal in the first place as once thought, or it needed to be subordinated to some other principle. Again, nous would be key here.
Haven't had time to go into any of this further, but, if you're open to recommendations, the question you're asking is addressed with your concerns in mind in Ronna Burger's Aristotle's Dialogue with Socrates (on the Ethics) and Michael Davis's The Politics of Philosophy (on the Politics).
bruh
last bump before i hang my head in shame
shame that there are ZERO Aristotelian chads on IQfy now
oh how the mighty hath fallen
I wish I could answer this question but unfortunately I am still a novice when it comes to Aristotle.
your question was answered in the first reply of the first thread yet you remade this three times. It isn’t even a good question.
I don't remember there being a good reply in the first thread at all, let alone the first reply being good.
That is because you are a moron
Or maybe it's because your reply was bad and you're still seething about the rejection days later
you aren’t rejecting me, you’re rejecting the answer to your own question, I’m not seething, I’m baffled that you seem to be so interested in your little question but ignore its answer.
You identify with your answer so you’re overly upset that a superficial response was rejected. Just let it go bro. Philosophy isn’t for everybody .
Your question was not about philosophy. It was about the interpretation of a philosopher, which does not require 5 hours of discussion when the question itself is pretty easy to give a straightfoward answer to. When I say that practical wisdom is different from wisdom because one has a view to action and you say “b-but isn’t thought an action??” We are no longer talking about Aristotle. You already know what Aristotle meant, you are just trying to start a circlejerk on top of it.
>Your question was not about philosophy
>It was about the interpretation of a philosopher,
This is why you're not cut out for philosophy. You're a dull pedant. Interpretations of philosophy is philosophy.
>When I say that practical wisdom is different from wisdom because one has a view to action and you say “b-but isn’t thought an action??”
This question obviously has metaphysical implications. It's probably connected to Aristotle's critique of the forms that brings up in Book I, but you didn't even think to bring that freebie up (because philosophy is not your strong suit).
>You already know what Aristotle meant, you are just trying to start a circlejerk on top of it.
People are still debating over what Aristotle meant across a wide swathe of his corpus to this day.
Thank you for the recommendations!
>Ronna Burger
>Michael Davis
Benardete's children, eh? That's already a good enough recommendation. Could you give me the briefest, most roughest sketch of what they talk about, from what angle they talk about it, etc.? I want to make sure that it's relevant to my concerns, because it's a pressing question and I don't want to take too significant of a detour.
It is not a pedantic distinction which you would understand if you actually did philosophy.
I've dealt with your types before. You see philosophy as a set of disconnected questions and answers meant only for rote memorization. Consider me thoroughly uninterested in your approach, and that will be the last of your matter. I will not be answering any more of your gripes.
>The simplest gist is (Burger works this out much more than Davis, it's one of the primary threads of her book) is that phronesis is for the sake of sophia, which sounds like a very Platonic conclusion.
That's interesting, do they ever explore a reverse relationship, too?
>philosophy is totally different from hermeneutics
>”ah ha, you must be one of those people who thinks philosophy is about memorization!”
socrates is rolling in his grave.
>That's interesting, do they ever explore a reverse relationship, too?
Burger does, though I don't recall the details. She does point out that the division between the two seems questionable in light of Aristotle assigning nous to both.
Perfect. I'm glad she delves into nous too. I'll check it out. Thank you!
>Benardete's children, eh? That's already a good enough recommendation. Could you give me the briefest, most roughest sketch of what they talk about, from what angle they talk about it, etc.?
The simplest gist is (Burger works this out much more than Davis, it's one of the primary threads of her book) is that phronesis is for the sake of sophia, which sounds like a very Platonic conclusion.
you're coping, pseud
navel-gazing will never be equal to actual work, be it something as simple as digging with a shovel
yes, navel-gazing will always be superior, which is why no ditch-digger makes as much as a consultant
boomp
wow this thread again?
it was answered in the first reply last time