Posted by Keyser Sozei on March 30, 19101 at 00:22:56:
In Reply to: Machaivelli posted by James on December 13, 1999 at 12:38:32:
Machaivelli defines virtue as the ability to lead successfully. No attention is giving to morality or justice in the definition of virtue by Machaivelli. The focus of virtue is the ability to obtain, maintain, and expand a kingdom.
Socrates would not have a definition, but would fling a question back at you to the tone of..." If virtue is to successfully lead. What is to successfully lead?" and the entire discussion on virtue would "exit to the left in an orderly fashion" and in place one would find a discussion on individual(leader) and society with a twist of morality.
The apostle paul was wrote with divine intervention, according to faith, so this is serious cause the big "G's" involved. Paul would disagree with this defintion of virtue because it is selfabsorbed upon selfadvancment and personal gain(not a whole lot of compion). This is a total hinderance and counteragdent to the teachings of the big "G" of compion and selflessness. Paul would be in support of a defintion of virtue more to the tone of qualities of God.
Post a Followup