A Soul Searched

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then is not an act but a habit.

Aristotle, Greek Philosopher

Philosophy derived from the ancient Greek philos and sophia is frequently translated to mean the love of wisdom, making philosophers wisdom’s lovers. If my definition of wisdom were to replace the classical translation, philosophy becomes the love of seeking the suitable, and philosophers are christened lovers of this quest.

Before I continue, however, since my definition of philosophy and philosopher differs marginally from the conventional understanding of these terms, and given my passion for coinage, I suggest referring to the philosopher described above with a special name:

“Phronetician”

Before you can seriously consider deploying this clunky term in casual conversation, an explanation is exigent on my part. Why use this new name and how exactly does a phronetician differ from your traditional philosopher?

Understanding the term requires meditating on an Aristotelian idea—Phronesis or Practical Wisdom. According to Aristotle, practical wisdom refers to the thought that underlies doing the right thing in a certain context. It refers to the psychological effort expended in raising the heavy question “what is the mean virtue that lies between the vices of deficiency and excess in this situation?” and following that heavy mental lifting with some lighter lifting in the material world.

For instance, say you are preparing for a final exam knowing that your classmates have devised a foolproof strategy to cheat on the test. What do you do? Do you skip your studies and cheat with the rest of your class? Do you speak out about the foolproof plan and in so doing demonstrate that it wasn’t as watertight as your classmates initially thought? Or do you study assiduously and write the exam as per expectations?

Any student would aver that this dilemma is not uncommon. The test of academics is as much a test of one’s proficiency at deception as it is a test of one’s understanding of the syllabus. A striking difference between cheaters and their honest counterparts is that the former risks failing two tests while the latter risks failing one.

Let me return to the dilemma above, before I get carried away with the pitfalls of the education system and testing en masse. There are three potentially suitable choices (we shall for the sake of this argument limit ourselves to these three), one way of thinking about these is as follows:

• Cheating (deception) = deficient honesty
• Ratting out the class (bluntness/tactlessness) = excess honesty
• Studying (integrity) = the mean – the right amount of honesty

The formulation above resembles one that Aristotle may have proposed. He would have said that in this situation practical wisdom, or phronesis would lead the student in question to study honestly for the test. I agree with Aristotle’s idea, but only up to a point. This leads me to a radical suggestion: all of the three responses to the dilemma are equally valid, one need only change the underlying virtue or value that governs your judgement.

Consider what follows:

According to most of your classmates,

• Cheating (fair) = the mean – responding appropriately to the knowledge of everyone cheating
• Ratting out the class (injustice) = the deficiency, since you are not banding with your classmates
• Studying (legalism) = the excess, you are being daft by abiding by a rule that applies to no one else.

is valid!

According to you, though,

• Cheating (injustice) = the deficiency – since everyone is shirking their responsibility
• Ratting out the class (fair) = the mean, since you are righting the dereliction of your classmates
• Studying (legalism) = the excess, you are being daft by abiding by a rule that applies to no one else.

could be equally valid.

This thought experiment reveals, to me the fundamental primacy of uncovering what virtues an individual values, since their phronesis or quest for the suitable is guided by a virtue hierarchy. If you value the virtue of honesty higher than fairness, then you are more likely to just study for the exam. If, on the other hand, fairness is something you value higher than honesty, then you would either cheat or rat out your classmates dependent on what you deem a fairer action. 

A Phronetician, is not a consequentialist whose values change as sporadically as circumstance.

Rather a seeker of an ultimate good— a person who chooses their values mindfully and then orders their footsteps toward the suitable, in light of the virtues that they value.

While Philosophers love a wisdom that might remain detached from practicalities, Phroneticians love a wisdom that seeks suitable deeds and virtues in line with their underlying values.

While the Consequentialist’s true moral north varies based on context, the Phronetician’s compass functions undeterred!

– Granville D. Austin