چکیده:
The analysis of virtue and its connection to knowledge is one of the important topics in moral philosophy, which also affects how it is perceived in ethical science. Socrates, whom some call the founder of philosophy and the father of moral philosophy (Frankna, 20:1376), considered virtue a prerequisite for knowledge and believed that if someone could distinguish between good and evil, no factor could force them to act against their knowledge. After Socrates, other philosophers reacted against this view. His student Plato accepted his teacher's theory, but Plato's student, Aristotle, rejected the Socratic theory and engaged in a detailed critique and examination of it. The main goal of this article is to state Aristotle's critiques of the Socratic theory. These critiques, on one hand, explain Aristotle's perspective on the subject under discussion, and on the other hand, by presenting various possibilities regarding the Socratic theory and critiquing and examining them, shed light on the Socratic theory. Aristotle's most important critique of the Socratic theory is that this theory ignores the influence of psychological tendencies and emotions on actions. A noteworthy point is that it seems Aristotle, in critiquing one of the formulations of the Socratic theory, finds himself unable to provide a decisive rebuttal and instead submits to it.
خلاصه ماشینی:
He says: If the above statement were correct, the matters that have been said so far regarding the internal origination of voluntary human actions would have to be incorrect, whereas this is not the case, and the stated matters are clear and self-evident, and individuals can find evidence for this by referring to their own specific abilities and talents (Ibid).
After interpreting and justifying the voluntariness of state and personality through considering the beginning of their formation via specific actions as voluntary, Aristotle introduces another objection regarding Socrates' theory to his arguments and provides a reason for the correctness of Socrates' theory.
Therefore, in response to Socrates' theory, it can be said: if someone has knowledge of the minor premise and both major premises and uses them, they will certainly act according to the reasoning resulting from the minor and two major premises; however, if they are ignorant of one of them, or do not use it, the action corresponding to the scientific premises is not realized.
But from another perspective, it is considered a rejection of Socrates' theory; because according to it, for a general judgment and major premise to lead to action, it requires attention to and the application of the particular judgment and minor premise, and the minor premise can be defeated by passion, and consequently, despite having clear knowledge of the major premise, man becomes defeated by desire, and thus, Socrates' theory is refuted.
Whereas in his previous discussions regarding Socrates' theory, Aristotle explicitly stated that if we return to ourselves and consider our own abilities in performing actions, we find that we can act contrary to our knowledge and despite being aware of the evil of the action, perform it.
(
, 
, 
)
