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? What would be
It sounds like there's 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?
 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
|
The distinction between thinking and doing is made because sophia is concerned with theoretical knowledge, while phronesis is concerned with practical knowledge. Sophia is about understanding universal truths, while phronesis is about making decisions and taking actions that lead to a good life
verification not required
My answer was not satisfactory for you homosexual? Read book 1 of metaphysics
I don't remember your answer. It probably was bad. I just forgot to monitor my thread so I could bump 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.
Furthermore, I think we need to be cautious about focusing too much on phronesis versus sophia, as it may cause us to ignore investigating the structure of doing versus thinking.
It was literally the only answer in tje thread homie
sorry I remember there being multiple answers and none scratched the itch
you could just restate it if you wanted to
i dont want to. his question is fricking stupid anyway.
why are you wasting so much time in this thread then? Sounds like you got a bruised ego
>>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.
you have to understand that rationalists don't care about truth. those people are subhumans who only want to jerk off all day and create a little cult around them.
Just be excellent bros.
you refuted Aristotle, congratulations, you are the first person to ever do that
shit he says is not always right ok
I don't think a refutation is necessarily in order. I think I would be building upon him, not against him.
I think before committing myself to further discussion, I would want to know: what do you, OP, make or understand of Aristotle's distinction between phronesis and sophia? Is there something in Aristotle's discussions of the two throughout bk. 6 that makes you suspect they're either less distinct than apparently presented, or do you see some relationship between the two that Aristotle implies?
I don't know if I want to answer the question because I don't want to get bogged down in a conversation about whether Aristotle ACKSHUALLY believes X. The issue is that there is a clear dualism present through Nicomachean Ethics that ought not to be the case but has yet to be resolved. I went a little bit further here:
Well, I'm asking because I in turn don't want to get bogged down otherwise if I don't know where you stand on what Aristotle says, because he does spend quite a few chapters fleshing out what phronesis seems to be, what its objects are, why its objects cause it to differ from sophia, and so on, right? If you had a specific or concrete disagreement or objection to Aristotle, that would be more straightforward to discuss, but otherwise, I'm not sure why we couldn't as easily raise the question in OP between phronesis and episteme, or techne and episteme, or techne and sophia, etc., right? And without at least something of what Aristotle has in mind, wouldn't it just be kinda free-floating speculation, where Aristotle need not even come in? That gets to be a bit tough to discuss.
With respect to
, I guess I'm not sure what symmetry you have in mind, or how the art of reasoning comes in (and by the latter, I mean: do you have in mind the syllogistic reasoning of the Analytics, or the kind of broader reasoning that seems to happen in bk. 6?). Or maybe, how do you see phronesis and sophia, such that you sense a symmetry at work?
why don't you spill a little bit of what you have to say instead of teasing? you're already writing full paragraphs, so it's not like you don't have the will or the spare time
I just said there's not anything per se *to* have in mind. My temptation is to respond to OP by summarizing what I think I understand of Aristotle's distinctions in bk. 6, but 1) that's a lot of work, and 2) wouldn't OP just respond by saying he's already read it, and reiterate his questions? The questions, abstracted from Aristotle's discussion, again, are woolier than I have the patience for, but if the discussion is specifically with Aristotle's discussion in mind, then I can follow along and ask questions or make observations or whatever, but then something about what he's said would have to be brought up to address or consider.
You don't have your own questions? Philosophy isn't supposed to end with the pages of a treatise. Besides, I already gave you a brief encapsulation about what I think:
.
I'm open to questioning the distinction, but it has to be on the basis on something, and not just an automatic "why?" when someone gives any account. In any case,
doesn't give me more to go on then that we would agree on the basic definitions, but I don't know then on what grounds you might see a symmetry, or on what grounds you might want to minimize or do away with the distinction between the two. This being what it is, and insofar as we're talking in circles, I wish you luck, but I'm dipping.
You're just not reading my posts if you don't think I haven't posited a reason for symmetry between phronesis and sophia. Earlier:
>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.
Furthermore, why does sophia have nous attached to it, but phronesis doesn't? Wouldn't proper application of phronesis require intellectual sight of sorts too, perhaps even more than sophia, as phronesis deals with what changes?
>Well, I'm asking because I in turn don't want to get bogged down otherwise if I don't know where you stand on what Aristotle says, because he does spend quite a few chapters fleshing out what phronesis seems to be, what its objects are, why its objects cause it to differ from sophia, and so on, right?
Phronesis deals with the variable and contingent, sophia deals with the invariable and eternal.
there's two books, probably because of the duality of man. thanks.