MATTHIAS'S SEVEN QUESTIONS - SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS
MATTHIAS'S CENTRAL ERROR
│
├─ THE FUNDAMENTAL CONFUSION
│ │
│ ├─ False Inference Pattern
│ │ ├─ "Health is necessary FOR virtue"
│ │ ├─ "Therefore health is part OF the good"
│ │ └─ Invalid: Conflates two different relationships
│ │
│ ├─ What's Being Conflated
│ │ ├─ Causal/enabling relationship (necessary FOR)
│ │ └─ Constitutive relationship (component OF)
│ │
│ └─ Core Correction Needed
│ ├─ Prop 20: Health = external, indifferent
│ ├─ Prop 10-11: Only assent up to you
│ └─ Prop 29: Virtue = pursuing aims, not outcomes
│
├─ QUESTION 1: BRAIN DAMAGE & DUALISM
│ │
│ ├─ The Question
│ │ ├─ "Brain damage destroys personality, virtue, abilities"
│ │ ├─ "Doesn't this prove mind = body (monism)?"
│ │ └─ "If mind depends on brain, aren't they same thing?"
│ │
│ ├─ The Confusion
│ │ ├─ Conflating dependency with identity
│ │ ├─ Reasoning: "If A depends on B, then A = B"
│ │ └─ Missing: Dependency ≠ Identity
│ │
│ ├─ Sterling's Answer
│ │ │
│ │ ├─ The Distinction
│ │ │ ├─ Software depends on hardware
│ │ │ ├─ Corrupt hardware → software can't run
│ │ │ └─ But software ≠ hardware
│ │ │
│ │ ├─ Applied to Mind
│ │ │ ├─ Self = prohairesis (rational faculty) - Prop 4
│ │ │ ├─ Rational faculty REQUIRES brain as substrate
│ │ │ ├─ Severe brain damage → rational faculty can't operate
│ │ │ └─ But rational faculty ≠ brain
│ │ │
│ │ └─ Two Types of Dualism
│ │ ├─ Cartesian (NOT Sterling's)
│ │ │ ├─ Mind as immaterial substance
│ │ │ ├─ Could exist without body
│ │ │ └─ Brain damage = mind imprisoned
│ │ │
│ │ └─ Sterling's Substance Dualism
│ │ ├─ Self = rational faculty (not material)
│ │ ├─ Requires functioning brain
│ │ ├─ Severe damage → person GONE (not partially damaged)
│ │ └─ Identity = rational faculty, not brain states
│ │
│ └─ Why It Matters
│ ├─ For Prop 10-11
│ │ ├─ If self = brain (monism) → all mental = physical
│ │ ├─ Physical processes determined by physical laws
│ │ └─ Nothing "up to you" (libertarian free will impossible)
│ │
│ └─ For Sterling's Framework
│ ├─ Self = rational faculty → assent can be "up to you"
│ └─ Enables Prop 10-11 to function
│
├─ QUESTION 2: NECESSARY CONDITION VS. COMPONENT
│ │
│ ├─ The Question
│ │ ├─ "If you NEED health for virtue"
│ │ ├─ "Then health must be PART OF the good"
│ │ └─ "You can't separate them"
│ │
│ ├─ The Logical Error
│ │ ├─ Assumes: If X necessary for Y, then X is part of Y's value
│ │ ├─ Form: "X necessary for Y → X is component of Y"
│ │ └─ This inference is invalid
│ │
│ ├─ Counter-Examples
│ │ │
│ │ ├─ Oxygen and Life
│ │ │ ├─ Oxygen necessary for life (true)
│ │ │ ├─ But oxygen ≠ part of what makes life good
│ │ │ ├─ Oxygen = enabling condition only
│ │ │ └─ Life's value independent of oxygen amount
│ │ │
│ │ ├─ Canvas and Painting
│ │ │ ├─ Canvas necessary for painting (true)
│ │ │ ├─ But canvas ≠ part of painting's artistic value
│ │ │ ├─ Masterpiece on cheap canvas > mediocre on expensive
│ │ │ └─ Canvas enables, doesn't determine value
│ │ │
│ │ └─ Stage and Performance
│ │ ├─ Stage necessary for theatrical performance (true)
│ │ ├─ But stage quality ≠ performance quality
│ │ ├─ Brilliant acting on bare stage > bad acting on elaborate
│ │ └─ Stage enables, doesn't constitute excellence
│ │
│ ├─ Sterling's Distinction
│ │ │
│ │ ├─ Two Different Relationships
│ │ │ ├─ CONDITION: What enables something else to exist
│ │ │ │ ├─ External to the thing it enables
│ │ │ │ ├─ Can be present without the thing
│ │ │ │ └─ Causal relationship
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ └─ COMPONENT: Part of what the thing is
│ │ │ ├─ Internal to the thing
│ │ │ ├─ Cannot be separated from thing
│ │ │ └─ Constitutive relationship
│ │ │
│ │ ├─ Applied to Health and Virtue
│ │ │ ├─ Prop 17: Virtue is only good
│ │ │ ├─ Prop 20-23: Health = external, indifferent
│ │ │ ├─ Prop 22: Health = preferred indifferent
│ │ │ ├─ Health = CONDITION for virtue (enables)
│ │ │ └─ Health ≠ COMPONENT of virtue (not part of good)
│ │ │
│ │ └─ Why Preference Doesn't Make It Good
│ │ ├─ Preferred BECAUSE it enables virtue
│ │ ├─ Not preferred BECAUSE it is good
│ │ └─ Instrumental value ≠ intrinsic value
│ │
│ └─ Test by Loss
│ │
│ ├─ If Health = Component of Good
│ │ ├─ Losing health = losing part of your good
│ │ ├─ Sick person's virtue = lesser virtue
│ │ ├─ Health amount determines virtue amount
│ │ └─ Illness diminishes eudaimonia
│ │
│ └─ If Health = Condition for Good
│ ├─ Losing health = losing condition, not good
│ ├─ Sick person's virtue = same quality (if rational faculty operates)
│ ├─ Health enables, doesn't determine virtue's worth
│ └─ Illness doesn't diminish eudaimonia (if virtue maintained)
│
├─ QUESTION 3: IGNORING DEPENDENCY?
│ │
│ ├─ The Question
│ │ ├─ "By saying 'health is indifferent'"
│ │ ├─ "Aren't you ignoring that virtue depends on health?"
│ │ └─ "Isn't this denial of reality?"
│ │
│ ├─ The Misunderstanding
│ │ ├─ Thinks "indifferent" means "irrelevant"
│ │ ├─ Thinks "indifferent" means "don't acknowledge dependency"
│ │ └─ Missing: Technical term with specific meaning
│ │
│ ├─ What "Indifferent" Actually Means
│ │ ├─ NOT "irrelevant" or "don't care about"
│ │ ├─ Technical definition: Neither good nor evil
│ │ ├─ Can be preferred or dispreferred
│ │ └─ Not determinative of eudaimonia
│ │
│ ├─ Framework ACKNOWLEDGES Dependency
│ │ │
│ │ ├─ Through Prop 22
│ │ │ ├─ Health = preferred indifferent
│ │ │ ├─ Preferred BECAUSE it enables virtue
│ │ │ └─ Acknowledges instrumental role
│ │ │
│ │ ├─ Through Section Four
│ │ │ ├─ Appropriate to aim at health
│ │ │ ├─ Rational to pursue health actively
│ │ │ └─ Acknowledges health matters as condition
│ │ │
│ │ └─ Through Prop 29
│ │ ├─ Virtue includes pursuing appropriate aims
│ │ ├─ Health is appropriate aim
│ │ └─ Acknowledges through action-guidance
│ │
│ ├─ What Framework DENIES
│ │ ├─ Health is good (value category)
│ │ ├─ Health loss is harm (your good diminished)
│ │ ├─ Need health for eudaimonia
│ │ ├─ Should grieve when lose health
│ │ └─ Eudaimonia depends on health continuing
│ │
│ └─ The Critical Distinction
│ ├─ Acknowledging dependency AS CONDITION: YES
│ │ ├─ Health enables virtue
│ │ ├─ Rational to pursue
│ │ └─ Appropriate to aim at
│ │
│ └─ Treating dependency AS MAKING HEALTH A GOOD: NO
│ ├─ Condition ≠ good
│ ├─ Enables ≠ constitutes
│ └─ Necessary ≠ valuable
│
├─ QUESTION 4: THE MECHANISM
│ │
│ ├─ The Question
│ │ ├─ "What MECHANICALLY distinguishes preferring from desiring?"
│ │ ├─ "Is it just emotion?"
│ │ └─ "How does this actually work?"
│ │
│ ├─ The Causal Foundation
│ │ │
│ │ ├─ Theorem 7: The Core Mechanism
│ │ │ ├─ "Desires and emotions are caused by acts of assent"
│ │ │ ├─ Desires don't "just happen"
│ │ │ ├─ They're CAUSED by value-judgments
│ │ │ └─ Judgment → Desire → Emotion (causal chain)
│ │ │
│ │ └─ Why This Matters
│ │ ├─ Change judgment → change desire automatically
│ │ ├─ Emotions reveal operative beliefs
│ │ └─ Mechanism is testable
│ │
│ ├─ DESIRING (False Belief Pattern)
│ │ │
│ │ ├─ The Causal Chain
│ │ │ ├─ Step 1: You assent to "Health is good"
│ │ │ ├─ Step 2: This CAUSES desire for health (Th 7)
│ │ │ ├─ Step 3: Health lost (external event)
│ │ │ └─ Step 4: Frustrated desire → GRIEF (pathos, Props 24-32)
│ │ │
│ │ ├─ The Components
│ │ │ ├─ Value-judgment: External is good
│ │ │ ├─ Emotional dependency on outcome
│ │ │ ├─ No reservation (MUST have this)
│ │ │ └─ Identity requires securing object
│ │ │
│ │ └─ The Diagnostic
│ │ ├─ Emotion PROVES false value-belief
│ │ ├─ Grief reveals: treated as good
│ │ └─ Pathos = correspondence failure indicator
│ │
│ ├─ PREFERRING (Correct Belief Pattern)
│ │ │
│ │ ├─ The Causal Chain
│ │ │ ├─ Step 1: Assent to "Virtue only good; health preferred indifferent"
│ │ │ ├─ Step 2a: This ELIMINATES desire for health as good
│ │ │ ├─ Step 2b: This GENERATES desire for virtue (Th 15)
│ │ │ ├─ Step 3: Aim at health appropriately with reservation (Section 4)
│ │ │ ├─ Step 4: Health lost (external event)
│ │ │ └─ Step 5: No frustrated desire → NO GRIEF
│ │ │
│ │ ├─ The Components
│ │ │ ├─ Rational selection (health preferred to illness)
│ │ │ ├─ Appropriate action (pursue health actively)
│ │ │ ├─ Reservation ("if nothing prevents it")
│ │ │ └─ No desire for it as good (virtue only good)
│ │ │
│ │ └─ The Diagnostic
│ │ ├─ Absence of grief PROVES correct classification
│ │ ├─ Calm reveals: treated as indifferent
│ │ └─ No pathos = correspondence achieved
│ │
│ ├─ The Bridge: Theorems 15-17
│ │ │
│ │ ├─ Same Mechanism, Two Directions
│ │ │ ├─ Th 7: Desires follow judgments (foundation)
│ │ │ ├─ Negative: Correct judgment eliminates false desire
│ │ │ └─ Positive: Correct judgment generates desire for virtue
│ │ │
│ │ ├─ Theorem 15
│ │ │ ├─ "If you judge virtue is good, you will desire it"
│ │ │ ├─ Same mechanism (Th 7) running positively
│ │ │ ├─ Correcting belief about virtue PRODUCES desire
│ │ │ └─ Not suppressing desire, but redirecting it
│ │ │
│ │ ├─ Theorem 16
│ │ │ ├─ "If you desire something and achieve it, positive feeling"
│ │ │ ├─ Achieved desire produces satisfaction
│ │ │ └─ Psychological observation
│ │ │
│ │ └─ Theorem 17
│ │ ├─ "Correct judgment + correct will → appropriate feelings"
│ │ ├─ Combines Th 15 + Th 16
│ │ └─ Desire for virtue → virtuous action → appropriate joy
│ │
│ ├─ Proposition 29: Where They Join
│ │ │
│ │ ├─ The Definition
│ │ │ ├─ "Virtue = pursuing appropriate objects of aim"
│ │ │ ├─ NOT "securing desired external outcomes"
│ │ │ └─ Quality of willing, not outcomes achieved
│ │ │
│ │ ├─ How It Answers Matthias
│ │ │ ├─ Preferring = pursuing appropriate aims
│ │ │ ├─ Desiring = pursuing desired outcomes
│ │ │ ├─ Distinction = rationality of willing with reservation
│ │ │ └─ vs. requiring specific outcome
│ │ │
│ │ ├─ The Single Correction
│ │ │ ├─ False judgment produces BOTH:
│ │ │ │ ├─ Desire for external as good (Section Two problem)
│ │ │ │ └─ Pursuing external as your good (Section Four problem)
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ └─ Correct judgment corrects BOTH:
│ │ │ ├─ No desire for external as good (Section Two solved)
│ │ │ └─ Pursue appropriate aims only (Section Four solved)
│ │ │
│ │ └─ One Mechanism, Two Results
│ │ ├─ Discipline of Desire and Discipline of Action
│ │ ├─ Not two separate practices
│ │ ├─ One correction applied to same faculty
│ │ └─ Judgment is the lever
│ │
│ └─ The Emotion Test (Operational)
│ │
│ ├─ Test 1: Emotion When Lost
│ │ ├─ Lose external, observe emotion
│ │ ├─ Grief/despair/anxiety = treating as good (desire)
│ │ └─ Calm acceptance = treating as indifferent (preference)
│ │
│ ├─ Test 2: Reservation Check
│ │ ├─ Pursue aim and it fails
│ │ ├─ Identity collapse/despair = was desiring (no reservation)
│ │ └─ Continue calmly = was preferring (with reservation)
│ │
│ └─ Test 3: Multiple Aims
│ ├─ Person pursuing 5 projects, 4 fail
│ ├─ If all desired as goods: devastated (4 goods lost)
│ └─ If all preferred as aims: calm (virtue in trying maintained)
│
├─ QUESTION 5-7: AFFECTION, EPICUREAN OBJECTION, SACRIFICE
│ │
│ ├─ QUESTION 5: Affection for Life/Health
│ │ │
│ │ ├─ The Question
│ │ │ ├─ "Should we have NO affection for life/health?"
│ │ │ ├─ "Does 'indifferent' mean don't care at all?"
│ │ │ └─ "Isn't that inhuman?"
│ │ │
│ │ ├─ What You SHOULD Have
│ │ │ ├─ Rational preference (Prop 22: preferred indifferent)
│ │ │ ├─ Natural inclination (acknowledged, not denied)
│ │ │ ├─ Appropriate pursuit (Section Four: aim at health)
│ │ │ ├─ Recognition as enabling condition
│ │ │ └─ Care for body (rational action)
│ │ │
│ │ ├─ What You SHOULD NOT Have
│ │ │ ├─ Desire for health as good (Prop 17 violation)
│ │ │ ├─ Grief when lose health (Props 24-32: pathos proves false belief)
│ │ │ ├─ Fear of illness as evil (treating external as evil)
│ │ │ ├─ Identity dependent on health (Prop 4 violation)
│ │ │ └─ Emotional need for health (treating as genuine good)
│ │ │
│ │ └─ The Distinction
│ │ ├─ Rational affection: "I prefer health as enabling condition"
│ │ │ ├─ Care for health
│ │ │ ├─ Pursue actively
│ │ │ └─ No grief when lost
│ │ │
│ │ └─ Emotional dependency: "I NEED health to be okay"
│ │ ├─ Treat as good
│ │ ├─ Identity requires it
│ │ └─ Grief when lost
│ │
│ ├─ QUESTION 6: Epicurean Objection
│ │ │
│ │ ├─ The Question
│ │ │ ├─ "Epicureans say it's NATURAL to desire life/health"
│ │ │ ├─ "Sterling says don't desire them"
│ │ │ └─ "Isn't that going against nature, being inhuman?"
│ │ │
│ │ ├─ The Philosophical Dispute
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ ├─ Epicurean Position
│ │ │ │ ├─ Pleasure/health naturally desired
│ │ │ │ ├─ Natural desire = good
│ │ │ │ ├─ Rational to pursue what we naturally desire
│ │ │ │ └─ Going against natural desire = irrational
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ └─ Sterling's Position
│ │ │ ├─ Virtue only good (Prop 17)
│ │ │ ├─ Natural desire = inclination, not determinant of good
│ │ │ ├─ Rational to classify correctly regardless of pull
│ │ │ └─ Following reason = following our true nature
│ │ │
│ │ ├─ Two Meanings of "Natural"
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ ├─ Natural-as-Biological-Inclination
│ │ │ │ ├─ We naturally seek pleasure, avoid pain
│ │ │ │ ├─ We naturally want to live, avoid death
│ │ │ │ ├─ We naturally prefer health to illness
│ │ │ │ ├─ Epicurus: This DEFINES what's good
│ │ │ │ └─ Sterling: This EXISTS but doesn't DEFINE good
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ └─ Natural-as-Rational-Faculty
│ │ │ ├─ Humans distinctively rational (Prop 4: self = prohairesis)
│ │ │ ├─ Our "nature" = rational faculty
│ │ │ ├─ Following our nature = following reason
│ │ │ └─ Reason evaluates natural inclinations
│ │ │
│ │ ├─ Examples: Natural Inclination ≠ Good
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ ├─ Sugar/Sweets
│ │ │ │ ├─ Natural to desire sweet taste (biological)
│ │ │ │ ├─ Does this make candy good? No
│ │ │ │ └─ Reason evaluates: preferred in moderation, not good
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ ├─ Sexual Pleasure
│ │ │ │ ├─ Natural biological drive
│ │ │ │ ├─ Does this make all sexual activity good? No
│ │ │ │ └─ Reason evaluates: some virtuous, some vicious
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ └─ Status/Dominance
│ │ │ ├─ Evolutionary inclination (social animals)
│ │ │ ├─ Does this make status good? No
│ │ │ └─ Reason evaluates: external, indifferent (Prop 20)
│ │ │
│ │ ├─ The Pattern
│ │ │ ├─ Natural inclination → We feel pull toward X
│ │ │ ├─ Reason evaluates → Is X genuinely good or just preferred?
│ │ │ └─ Sterling: Health = preferred (reason's evaluation) despite natural desire
│ │ │
│ │ └─ Which Is "More Human"?
│ │ │
│ │ ├─ Epicurean View
│ │ │ ├─ Appeals to biological nature (shared with animals)
│ │ │ ├─ Doesn't require correcting natural desires
│ │ │ └─ "Go with the flow" of nature
│ │ │
│ │ └─ Sterling's View
│ │ ├─ Appeals to rational nature (our distinctive capacity)
│ │ ├─ Requires using reason to evaluate correctly
│ │ ├─ "Exercise your rational faculty" = be fully human
│ │ └─ Not inhuman - fully human through rationality
│ │
│ └─ QUESTION 7: Precondition/Sacrifice
│ │
│ ├─ The Question
│ │ ├─ "You can only sacrifice life if you HAVE it first"
│ │ ├─ "So life must be necessary/valuable"
│ │ └─ "Possibility of sacrifice proves life is good"
│ │
│ ├─ The Logical Error
│ │ ├─ "If X is precondition for virtuous action Y"
│ │ ├─ "Then X must be valuable/good"
│ │ └─ Confuses precondition with value
│ │
│ ├─ Sterling's Response
│ │ ├─ Precondition FOR virtuous action ≠ good itself
│ │ ├─ Life enables sacrifice
│ │ └─ But life ≠ what makes sacrifice good
│ │
│ ├─ The Sacrifice Logic
│ │ │
│ │ ├─ If Life = Good (Matthias's reasoning)
│ │ │ ├─ Sacrificing life = sacrificing a good
│ │ │ ├─ Soldier loses something genuinely good
│ │ │ ├─ Soldier is HARMED by heroic act
│ │ │ ├─ Sacrifice = loss of good for others' goods
│ │ │ ├─ Soldier's eudaimonia diminished by death
│ │ │ └─ Makes sacrifice IRRATIONAL (harming yourself)
│ │ │
│ │ └─ If Life = Condition Not Good (Sterling)
│ │ ├─ Sacrificing life = giving up condition to act virtuously
│ │ ├─ Soldier achieves virtue (only good) through sacrifice
│ │ ├─ Soldier NOT harmed (good = virtue, achieved not lost)
│ │ ├─ Sacrifice = achieving good by surrendering condition
│ │ ├─ Soldier's eudaimonia achieved in moment of death
│ │ └─ Makes sacrifice RATIONAL (achieving your good)
│ │
│ ├─ Examples That Prove the Point
│ │ │
│ │ ├─ Soldier Sacrificing Life
│ │ │ ├─ Has life (precondition)
│ │ │ ├─ Sacrifices heroically (virtuous action)
│ │ │ ├─ If life = good: irrational trade, self-harm
│ │ │ └─ If life = condition: rational virtue, good achieved
│ │ │
│ │ ├─ Firefighter Entering Burning Building
│ │ │ ├─ Risks life (precondition)
│ │ │ ├─ To save child (virtuous action)
│ │ │ ├─ If life = good: why risk your good for stranger's?
│ │ │ └─ If life = condition: using condition to achieve virtue
│ │ │
│ │ └─ Martyr's Choice
│ │ ├─ Early Christians sacrificed lives
│ │ ├─ If life = good: lost genuine good, made irrational trade
│ │ └─ If life = condition: achieved virtue, not harmed
│ │
│ └─ Why This Proves Sterling's Framework
│ ├─ For sacrifice to be VIRTUOUS not IRRATIONAL:
│ │ ├─ What's sacrificed must NOT be your good
│ │ ├─ What's achieved must BE your good
│ │ └─ Therefore: Life = condition, virtue = good
│ │
│ └─ The Precondition Objection Actually Supports Sterling
│ ├─ Need to treat life as condition not good
│ └─ To make virtuous sacrifice coherent
│
└─ THE CONVERGENCE: HOW ALL QUESTIONS CONNECT
│
├─ All Seven Questions Rest On Same Error
│ ├─ Conflating necessary condition with component of good
│ ├─ Treating "enables" as "constitutes"
│ └─ Missing distinction between condition FOR and part OF
│
├─ All Seven Questions Answered By Same Props
│ │
│ ├─ Prop 4: Self = prohairesis
│ │ └─ Answers Q1 (dualism), Q5 (affection), Q7 (sacrifice)
│ │
│ ├─ Prop 10-11: Only assent up to you
│ │ └─ Answers Q1 (why dualism matters), Q2-3 (dependency)
│ │
│ ├─ Prop 17: Virtue only good
│ │ └─ Answers Q2 (necessary ≠ component), Q6 (Epicurean)
│ │
│ ├─ Prop 20-23: Externals indifferent
│ │ └─ Answers Q2-3 (health classification), Q5 (affection)
│ │
│ ├─ Prop 29: Virtue = pursuing aims, not outcomes
│ │ └─ Answers Q4 (mechanism), Q7 (sacrifice logic)
│ │
│ └─ Th 7, 15-17: Desires follow judgments
│ └─ Answers Q4 (how mechanism works), Q6 (natural vs rational)
│
├─ The Master Answer: Prop 29
│ │
│ ├─ Why It Solves Everything
│ │ ├─ Shows how to pursue externals (as appropriate aims)
│ │ ├─ WITHOUT treating as goods (with reservation)
│ │ ├─ Acknowledges dependency (health = appropriate aim)
│ │ ├─ Maintains distinction (pursuing ≠ desiring)
│ │ └─ Unifies Section Two + Section Four
│ │
│ ├─ The Single Correction
│ │ ├─ Correct value-judgment about what's genuinely good
│ │ ├─ Produces TWO results simultaneously:
│ │ │ ├─ Eliminates false desire (Section Two)
│ │ │ └─ Generates appropriate action (Section Four)
│ │ └─ Judgment is the lever for everything
│ │
│ └─ Why Matthias Needs This
│ ├─ Keeps asking: "How can you aim without desiring?"
│ ├─ Prop 29 shows: Pursue appropriate aims ≠ desire as goods
│ ├─ Same action (pursuing health)
│ ├─ Different judgment (health = aim vs health = good)
│ └─ Different result (no pathos vs pathos when lost)
│
└─ Matthias's Path Forward
│
├─ START: "Health necessary → health is part of good"
│
├─ ERROR IDENTIFIED: Conflating condition with component
│
├─ CORRECTION 1: Distinguish FOR from OF
│ └─ Necessary condition FOR ≠ Component OF
│
├─ CORRECTION 2: Understand Prop 10-11
│ └─ What's up to you (virtue) can't depend on not up to you (health)
│
├─ CORRECTION 3: Grasp Prop 29
│ └─ Virtue = pursuing aims, not securing outcomes
│
├─ CORRECTION 4: See Th 7 mechanism
│ └─ Desires follow judgments (testable, operational)
│
├─ CORRECTION 5: Emotion test
│ └─ Grief = proof of false belief, diagnostic not arbitrary
│
├─ END: Can acknowledge dependency WITHOUT treating as good
│ ├─ Pursue health appropriately (Section Four)
│ ├─ Don't desire as genuine good (Section Two)
│ ├─ Reserve outcome to Providence (Prop 35c)
│ └─ Apatheia possible even when health fails
│
└─ RESULT: Framework coherent, questions answered
```
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home