Prudence
03/02/19 05:34
Language is constantly evolving. New terms are introduced and make their way into common usage and into the dictionary. Old terms shift in meaning and usage. Scholars debate over nuance and minutia of spelling, usage and other technical details. I’m pretty sure that I would not have made a good linguist, but I find some of the studies to be fascinating. I have become aware of how much shifts in the meaning of words has affected our discussions of other topics, including philosophy and theology, the main focus of my scholarship.
The ancients recognized four cardinal virtues. The term cardinal comes from the Latin word for hinge. The cardinal virtues are considered to be the hinges to a virtuous life. Without them virtue is not possible. Those virtues are prudence, courage, temperance and justice. Essentially it was believed that you needed to possess these four qualities in order to be a good person. A leader was expected to demonstrate all four. By the time of Aristotle these four virtues were widely recognized and defined in such a way as to hold common meaning in discussions, though the term “cardinal” was not yet applied to the essential virtues. Modern philosophers often turn to Thomas Aquinas as the one to define Christian virtues. Aquinas started with the virtues outlined by Paul in the first letter to the Corinthians: faith, hope and love. Those three were added to the traditional four giving seven basic attributes of a moral person.
Aquinas spent significant time elaborating on each of the virtues and his definitions remain nearly a millennium after his time. The definitions, however are different from the way these terms are used in common conversation today. For example, consider prudence. We often think of prudence as shyness or restraint. Aquinas assigned eight attributes to prudence: memory, intelligence, docility, shrewdness, reason, foresight, circumspection and caution. His discussions of the subject describe a prudent person as one who has the capacity to think calmly in a trying situation and to weigh options under pressure. One cannot be prudent without the ability to anticipate the possible consequences of an action. And one gains this ability through experience, so memory is an essential function of prudence.
It is hard to look at contemporary political leaders and define them as prudent according to Aquinas’ definition. Our political system is so weighted to short-term success that there are few politicians who are swayed by consequences that are more than a couple of years in the future. When reelection is the primary goal, other things, including service, sacrifice, and the overall good of the people seem to take a back seat.
In a similar manner, our contemporary usage of the term courage varies from its meaning in the history of philosophy. These days courage is often used as another term for boldness or audacity. Historically the definition of the virtue focused on mental stamina and innovation. Courage is the ability to act on one’s beliefs despite danger or disapproval. As such it requires the ability to innovate because it is not the path of least resistance or the path most chosen by others. Courage is the ability to remain consistent in terms of commitments.
One of the disappointments of citizenship in our country today is the lack of genuine courage among our leaders. They seem to have no moral convictions, but rather twist and turn in the face of popularity, polls and funders. They lack the ability to take a stand on their own, but rather vote as members of a block or party.
it is my conviction that part of the current situation is the result of decades of emphasis on technical and scientific education at the expense of teaching the basics of the humanities. When I was in elementary school, we were encouraged to study science and math because our nation was engaged in a space race and technical skills were needed to engage in that competition. These days the emphasis is upon STEM education. These are indeed worthy areas of study and scholarship. Making them exclusive, however, is to deny research and scholarship around critical humanities such as art, music, philosophy, and theology. The failure to study these subjects and the failure to fund research in these fields in universities has resulted in a generation of people who are not familiar with discussions that have been going on for as long as we can remember. What results is a kind of “morality lite” that lists a few virtues without defining them and seems to promote technical skill over discernment and thought. The result is a host of unintended consequences. Driverless cars are not programmed to make moral decisions. Technologies are developed without consideration of their true purpose or value. We do things because we can without considering whether or not we should.
I know this is a topic about which I have written before. It may even sound old and dated to regular readers of my journal. But it is not difficult to see signs of deterioration in the basic building blocks of social order. Politicians debate about the nature of truth without having any resources to judge truth. “Truth” becomes only another opinion as if there were no absolutes with which to gauge reality. The person with the loudest voice or the biggest pulpit is allowed to declare something to be true without any judgment about the nature of truth.
Interestingly in this climate, people resort to very primitive beliefs. They rest their beliefs on what they want to happen rather than what evidence suggests will happen. This brings the discussion back to the definition of prudence. When memory and intelligence, shrewdness and reason are not applied to the discussion, it becomes possible for leaders to deny the reality of climate change for the benefit of short term financial or political gain. The gains are short term because the leaders are short sighted. The consequences of denying reality may be so consequential as to result in the extinction of human beings. Prudence is as valuable in our time as it was in the days of the ancients and it may be even more critical to our future.
So far, however, I haven’t recognized any real philosophers among the candidates declaring their run for the office of President. I’ll keep looking.
The ancients recognized four cardinal virtues. The term cardinal comes from the Latin word for hinge. The cardinal virtues are considered to be the hinges to a virtuous life. Without them virtue is not possible. Those virtues are prudence, courage, temperance and justice. Essentially it was believed that you needed to possess these four qualities in order to be a good person. A leader was expected to demonstrate all four. By the time of Aristotle these four virtues were widely recognized and defined in such a way as to hold common meaning in discussions, though the term “cardinal” was not yet applied to the essential virtues. Modern philosophers often turn to Thomas Aquinas as the one to define Christian virtues. Aquinas started with the virtues outlined by Paul in the first letter to the Corinthians: faith, hope and love. Those three were added to the traditional four giving seven basic attributes of a moral person.
Aquinas spent significant time elaborating on each of the virtues and his definitions remain nearly a millennium after his time. The definitions, however are different from the way these terms are used in common conversation today. For example, consider prudence. We often think of prudence as shyness or restraint. Aquinas assigned eight attributes to prudence: memory, intelligence, docility, shrewdness, reason, foresight, circumspection and caution. His discussions of the subject describe a prudent person as one who has the capacity to think calmly in a trying situation and to weigh options under pressure. One cannot be prudent without the ability to anticipate the possible consequences of an action. And one gains this ability through experience, so memory is an essential function of prudence.
It is hard to look at contemporary political leaders and define them as prudent according to Aquinas’ definition. Our political system is so weighted to short-term success that there are few politicians who are swayed by consequences that are more than a couple of years in the future. When reelection is the primary goal, other things, including service, sacrifice, and the overall good of the people seem to take a back seat.
In a similar manner, our contemporary usage of the term courage varies from its meaning in the history of philosophy. These days courage is often used as another term for boldness or audacity. Historically the definition of the virtue focused on mental stamina and innovation. Courage is the ability to act on one’s beliefs despite danger or disapproval. As such it requires the ability to innovate because it is not the path of least resistance or the path most chosen by others. Courage is the ability to remain consistent in terms of commitments.
One of the disappointments of citizenship in our country today is the lack of genuine courage among our leaders. They seem to have no moral convictions, but rather twist and turn in the face of popularity, polls and funders. They lack the ability to take a stand on their own, but rather vote as members of a block or party.
it is my conviction that part of the current situation is the result of decades of emphasis on technical and scientific education at the expense of teaching the basics of the humanities. When I was in elementary school, we were encouraged to study science and math because our nation was engaged in a space race and technical skills were needed to engage in that competition. These days the emphasis is upon STEM education. These are indeed worthy areas of study and scholarship. Making them exclusive, however, is to deny research and scholarship around critical humanities such as art, music, philosophy, and theology. The failure to study these subjects and the failure to fund research in these fields in universities has resulted in a generation of people who are not familiar with discussions that have been going on for as long as we can remember. What results is a kind of “morality lite” that lists a few virtues without defining them and seems to promote technical skill over discernment and thought. The result is a host of unintended consequences. Driverless cars are not programmed to make moral decisions. Technologies are developed without consideration of their true purpose or value. We do things because we can without considering whether or not we should.
I know this is a topic about which I have written before. It may even sound old and dated to regular readers of my journal. But it is not difficult to see signs of deterioration in the basic building blocks of social order. Politicians debate about the nature of truth without having any resources to judge truth. “Truth” becomes only another opinion as if there were no absolutes with which to gauge reality. The person with the loudest voice or the biggest pulpit is allowed to declare something to be true without any judgment about the nature of truth.
Interestingly in this climate, people resort to very primitive beliefs. They rest their beliefs on what they want to happen rather than what evidence suggests will happen. This brings the discussion back to the definition of prudence. When memory and intelligence, shrewdness and reason are not applied to the discussion, it becomes possible for leaders to deny the reality of climate change for the benefit of short term financial or political gain. The gains are short term because the leaders are short sighted. The consequences of denying reality may be so consequential as to result in the extinction of human beings. Prudence is as valuable in our time as it was in the days of the ancients and it may be even more critical to our future.
So far, however, I haven’t recognized any real philosophers among the candidates declaring their run for the office of President. I’ll keep looking.