After talking in class briefly about Socrates' notion of temperance, and especially after having read the section in the Phaedo which is written about temperance, I have been doing a great deal of thinking regarding the subject. I am extremely bothered by the notion that having temperance is a contradiction in the sense that being temperate first involves being intemperate. One can not abstain from alcohol without having first experienced the desire, and Socrates felt that simply avoiding taking a drink was not, in itself, as impressive as having absolutely no desire to drink in the first place.
While I agree that an alcoholic ultimately never having a craving for some booze is great in theory, I don't think that this is a realistic approach to temperance. I, contrary to Socrates, find validity in the virtue of temperance. I am impressed by a man or woman overcoming his or her deepest desires because I see strength in their actions. Where is the strength in someone denying a drink who did not have a desire for that drink in the first place?
On the other hand, I can see how, ultimately, "training" an alcoholic to overcome those desires once and for all would the the ideal outcome of practicing temperance. In practicing and training one's will, which requires a great deal of strength, an alcoholic could possibly overcome that desire absolutely. Would Socrates give merit to someone who was able to do this, though?
No comments:
Post a Comment