'the good heart which is the fruit of virtue is by itself a great benefit to humanity. mere knowledge is not.'
to begin, a few definitions: virtue - (n) a quality of character that contains in it the choosing of goodness or good acts; a vital aspect of good (as opposed to evil). good - 1.(n) an act of kindness or performance of some charity 2.(adv) to be pleasing and behave in a manner opposite of bad or evil. knowledge - (n) to have a certain intelligence regarding any number of subjects, whether innate or enhanced by studying.
granted, these definitions are mine and are assuredly not correct by webster standards, but they will aid in a more thorough understanding of the following thoughts. in regards to the above quote, i concur that knowledge alone is not enough to make significant or lasting change when the subject is humanity and the goal is positive change in that subject. some may argue that significant change has occurred with the knowledge of a miser, who has no interest other than his own at heart. a counter-argument is posed that this 'significant' change is not really significant at all when compared to change that occurs when knowledge is combined with goodness. here, the littlest change could be multiplied exponentially if performed by someone with the interests of humanity at heart. undoubtedly, this heartfelt individual includes like-minded people as well, which only furthers the benefit to humankind. as for the first part of the quote, when read initially, I disagreed with the statement 'good heart'. i do not see evidence that the human heart is naturally good. we are constantly struggling to be kind, to forgive, to include others, to be thoughtful, to give up our share of the cake. on the other hand, it is quite a simple thing to become upset, to hold a grudge, to be selfish, to indulge ourselves. or perhaps I speak only for myself. that said, after considering the remainder of the quote, i see that it does not imply that the heart is good on its own, but that a good heart is a result of virtue. virtue contains good - it is not a product of goodness. it is the virtue of a person that leads to the good deeds that are done, rather than virtue flowing from the natural good of a person. that is not to say virtue is easily come by. on the contrary, it is a characteristic that must be honed and guarded against the temptation of cheating, selfish ambition, greed and the like. but when it is cared for and regularly practiced, much good comes of it and benefits those who come in contact with it. and this is virtue of itself. when this virtue aids in the creation of the heart intent upon good, and is combined with knowledge, then there is the great possibility for remarkable change to occur. knowledge on its own is weak and goodness, though powerful in isolation, can result in the saving of humanity if used as a catalyst for knowledge.
this is a response of mine to a quote given to me by a fellow volunteer. please feel free to leave comments, arguments, or suggestions.
2 comments:
"i do not see evidence that the human heart is naturally good. we are constantly struggling to be kind, to forgive, to include others, to be thoughtful, to give up our share of the cake. on the other hand, it is quite a simple thing to become upset, to hold a grudge, to be selfish, to indulge ourselves."
Hi Alicia,
I'm not sure that I'm totally sold on the idea that it's easier to be 'evil' than 'good'. Sure it's easy to hold a grudge, or do other minor evils... but isn't it just as easy to do minor goods... like saying thanks or giving someone a smile?
And when it comes to major good or evil, I think I am about equally incapable of both. Selling all that I have and giving it to the poor seems about as impossible to me as intentionally torturing someone to death. The only way that either may be possible for anyone is probably because a person starts down the path of one or the other, and the closer she gets to ultimate good (or evil) the easier it is to reach it.
It seems to me that humans are caught in the middle between good and evil. We are neither one nor the other except through our choices and the habits thereof. When Romans (and Psalms) speaks about how none of us are good, ("no, not one") they are referring to ultimate holiness... the kind of goodness that would put us in God's league (heaven) without any forgiveness needed.
I would even go so far as to say that the concept could be reversed and still be true: that no one is wholly evil (no, not one). Evil, by nature, is always the perversion of something good... and so if something were wholly evil, it would have no goodness at all, and therefore have no inherent lure. Stalin did a lot of bad things for the sake of his power, but power itself is inherently a good thing (witness: God has power).
Kind regards,
David
"Nor again is there anyone who loves or pursues or desires to obtain pain of itself, because it is pain, but because occasionally circumstances occur in which toil and pain can procure him some great pleasure. To take a trivial example, which of us ever undertakes laborious physical exercise, except to obtain some advantage from it? But who has any right to find fault with a man who chooses to enjoy a pleasure that has no annoying consequences, or one who avoids a pain that produces no resultant pleasure?"
Post a Comment