Thursday, November 6, 2014

To be (virtuous), or not to be (virtuous), that is the question?


                                                      “We present and the world perceives”

 
Assume for a moment that you were presented two choices at birth:
One…you would grow up to be an extremely honest person, and help many people throughout your life… yet your virtue would go unnoticed.

Two…you would grow up to cheat, lie, steal, and do everything for personal gains, yet everyone around you would believe that you were the greatest person who acts only in the interest of others…you would be perceived to be virtuous.

Which outcome would you prefer?
This is a true dilemma that comes up in Plato’s “Republic”.  There was discourse between Socrates and Gluacon (Plato’s son) regarding living the virtuous life verses the perception of a virtuous life.  

Socrates stated, “It’s better to be virtuous rather than seem virtuous.”
Gluacon disagreed. He proposes a hypothetical of a person finding a ring that would make him invisible.  This ring would allow him to cheat, lie, and steal without anyone seeing him.  Due to his outward display of virtue, the masses loved him.

Glaucon’s hypothetical implies that people are only virtuous because they fear the consequences of getting caught…especially the damage of their reputations. (Think of politicians)
These people are more concerned with their reputation than their character.

Socrates argued that a just, reasonable person is what we should strive for… “If reason rules, then it cares about what is truly good, not just about the appearance of virtue.”
These people are more concerned with their character than their reputation.

Socrates went on to say… “Reason is our original nature, he thought; Passions often corrupt reason, but if we can learn to control those passions, our God given rationality will shine forth and guide us to do the right thing, not the popular thing.”

We do what we value?
Is Socrates’ proposition flawed by thinking reason is our “original nature”?

I would propose our original nature is passions, or drives, that are manifestations from our anxious ancestral past.  These early passions (needs) came in the form of safety, food, shelter, and sex.
In modernity, these passions are somewhat satiated; we now project these drives in the form of glutinous wealth and fame.  All of this is done in the guise of virtue.

These “perceived values” are easy to see in today’s society and are widely broadcasted on TV, in magazines, and on the internet.
The social network has provided the average Joe a great platform for self-promotion.  In an instant, we can create the illusion of fame and perceived value, which in reality, doesn’t exist.

What we value is what we create; what we create is what we idolize.
According to researcher Heinz Kohut… "Idolization is a developmentally appropriate response to being a “child"… and… "Adolescents engage in idolization in order to compensate for the narcissistic injury of the inevitable failure of one's parents to live up to their child's lofty needs and desires."

Unfortunately, this adolescent failure of “needs and desires” carries over into adult hood, creating the illusionary need of perceived value and virtue. 
Let’s admit it, in an age of images and entertainment, in an age of instant emotional gratification, in an age of self-indulgent narcissism, most (not all) will neither seek nor desire honesty or true virtue.

Virtue is doing the right thing because it is virtuous to do so.
Virtue is quiet and often goes unnoticed. 

Virtue is complicated.

Virtue takes work.
If the “perception of virtue” is what we admire, then the admiration of others is what we desire.

If “true virtue” is what we admire, then the admiration and respect for one’s self is what’s desired.


"I prefer to be true to myself, even at the hazard of incurring the ridicule of others, rather than to be false, and to incur my own abhorrence... "

                                                                                    Frederick Douglass