Epistemological Relativism

For my summer reading I’m attempting to complete “In Defense of History” by Richard J. Evans. More closely related to a summary than original content, Evans attempts to communicate to the reader the current state of historical epistemology or, basically, how do we know things about history. This is an important concept that many, including myself until quite recently, took for granted. “It is simply a matter of reading primary sources”, I used to say. The reality of the situation is that we must deal with world views, intentions and training of the ancient or even modern historian. To be sure, these are only a few of the considerations. The challenge or even difficulty that I’ve stumbled upon is determining what criteria we use to determine if we are “on the right track” with regards to our analysis of events in the past. Restated, how do we know that our analysis is in-sync or a reflection of “what actually happened”? Evans’ book will, hopefully, summarize the various approaches taken by historians of all stripes. In reading the introduction I ran across this rather intriguing quote by Raymond Martin, “When it comes to understand the past, historians are the acknowledged experts. But when it comes to understanding how we understand the past, there are no experts.”

 

Teaching virtue is a challenge. In some sense, the very idea of “teaching virtue” is sort of a misnomer. I can’t really teach someone *to be* virtuous. I can only offers reasons why virtue is to be desired, what virtue is, and the foundational elements of good character. Many curriculums offer only a list of foundational elements without addressing the other components. With that sort of coverage virtue training degenerates into a list of do’s and do not’s that may or may not persuade or encourage a child to choose appropriately. Categories or lists of virtuous characteristics are excellent, but lose their effectiveness if not grounded and communicated within a larger framework.

Perhaps the reasons most approaches offer lists is because the authors themselves have forgotten that virtue is *not* about good behavior. Well, it is, but only indirectly. Virtue is concerned with living up to one’s full potential or, more broadly, the fulfillment of function. Some of the ancient philosophers understood that all things had an intended use. This included human beings. Religion’s of the world echo this same sentiment. Generally this purpose could mean something like the golden rule. This simple rule is loaded with theological depths and a multitude of applications. Some would say this summary is our mission and ultimate purpose. It is in this summary where we realize our full potential as human beings and image bearers of the divine. Virtue then is the mechanism by which we become who we ought to be.

Understanding this, virtue becomes a much richer and vibrant endeaver that enables us to truly achieve our potential. The lists become the guides to this goal and with the complete framework in place produces individuals who become serious about their mission. No more will individuals be driven solely by do’s and do not’s, but instead will be driven by becoming.

In the search for this framework I believe, at a minimum, it must answer these questions:

1) What is virtue?

2) Why should I be virtuous?

3) What does virtuous behavior look like?

4) What are the foundational elements of virtue?