Aristotle's Non-Rational Faculties

Aristotle believes that virtue is a type of knowledge; virtue is also engaging in rational activity. However, having a virtuous character may be difficult to contain, as humans have many non-rational faculties. These faculties may affect a state of character, taking away one’s virtue. Aristotle believes, though, it is possible for non-rational faculties to be utilized in a virtuous way. In this paper, I will analyze non-rational faculties and their function, identify how virtue can affect these faculties, bring up different parts of the non-rational soul, and overall support Aristotle’s position that “virtue being a knowledge” and that “non-rational faculties can be exercised as virtuous activity” do not conflict. Firstly, it is important

Certain faculties within the soul can be conditioned in order to build a good character, however some are acted upon without any form of deliberation. Aristotle believes that the non-rational soul is like a child, and that the rational soul is like the child’s parents. The non-rational soul is guided by the rational soul, such as the child listens to his parents. Aristotle also believes that all people, even virtuous people, have these non-rational faculties within them, and their virtue involves the excellent exercise of their non-rational faculties. Human emotion, for instance, is an example of a non-rational faculty. This may seem like it cannot be affected by rational action, however, Aristotle believes that acting out of emotion is completely voluntary (making the actor responsible). To illustrate emotion being a non-rational faculty, I will use a story. N has been robbed, and his expensive vase (a family heirloom) has been stolen from him. N is frustrated and hurt by this, and after looking for clues,

The knowledge of virtue must assist in non-rational thought’s guidance of action. Deliberation and habituation lead to virtuous behavior, however, Aristotle believes there are steps to obtaining virtue. Decency is a stage to becoming virtuous, and what separates decent action from virtuous action is knowledge. Aristotle thinks that an agent’s understanding defines the quality of an action. Right action must be habituated, and when an action done at the right time, right place, and the right amount, it may become virtuous. This relates back to the first example, as the anger felt within N was exercised at the right time, place, and amount. His knowledge spoke in the same voice as his non-rational faculties, creating a virtuous action. However, in the second example, N’s emotion was not guided by knowledge and was not exercised for the right reason. N did not live the non-rationally active moment in a virtuous