However, sometimes it is difficult not to fall into paralysis by analysis. I suppose that, based on practice, it is possible to find that balance point, very necessary especially in situations that require a quick response.
This is a thoughtful piece, and the Seneca quote raises fascinating questions about human excellence. However, I think there's a crucial philosophical problem embedded in the claim that "reason is our defining quality" and therefore "the standard by which we judge ourselves."
Your Challenger example actually reveals the limitation of this framework. The engineers' failure wasn't primarily rational - they reasoned correctly about the O-rings. Their failure was one of courage - they lacked the strength to stand firm against managerial and political pressure. More rational analysis wouldn't have saved them; they needed what the Greeks called andreia (spiritedness, courage) to resist.
This points to a deeper issue: the Stoic reduction of all human excellence to rational excellence. When Seneca uses the Latin word virtus (virtue) to translate the Greek arete (excellence), something crucial gets lost. The Greeks distinguished between:
Arete = excellence generally (what any thing does well based on its function)
Andreia = courage specifically (excellence of the spirited part of soul)
Sophia = wisdom (excellence of the rational part)
Sophrosyne = moderation (excellence of the appetitive part)
Plato's insight in the Republic was that different parts of the soul have different functions and therefore require different excellences. You can't solve a courage problem with more reasoning, just as you can't solve a moderation problem or a constitutional integration problem by adding more rational analysis.
In clinical practice, this matters enormously. When clients need to develop healthy assertiveness, set boundaries, or feel righteous anger, telling them to "use more reason" misses the functional diagnosis. They don't need more logistikon; they need properly functioning thumos.
I've written more about how this Latin-to-Greek translation problem has distorted our understanding of virtue and excellence here:
The short version: when the Romans translated arete (general excellence) using virtus (manliness/courage), they collapsed Plato's functional pluralism into the Stoic monolith of "virtue as rational excellence."
Reason is certainly important - but it's one excellence among several, not the singular standard for all human judgment.
Thank you for your well-considered and informative response. In my article, I wasn’t actually thinking of it as the engineers’ failure (though it could have been that), but rather as the managers’ failure.
I need to reflect more on what you mean by “virtue as rational excellence.” Traditionally, the four virtues answer four questions:
What to do and what not to do (wisdom)
What to endure and what not to fear (courage)
What to give and what not to take (justice)
What to desire and what not to desire (moderation)
I’m not entirely sure why applying rationality to these four questions is seen as problematic. Although the Stoics were categorical about many things, I don't believe that they thought context is 100% irrelevant. This can be seen in their view of indifferents. Indifferents can be "good" or "bad" depending on the context.
It may simply come down to core beliefs. For example, if you believe in feeling righteous anger in certain contexts, while the Stoics reject it under any condition, I can see why you would reject Stoic rationality.
However, sometimes it is difficult not to fall into paralysis by analysis. I suppose that, based on practice, it is possible to find that balance point, very necessary especially in situations that require a quick response.
Yes. Analysis beyond a point does not add clarity. The more important question is, are we applying the right criterion to decide?
This is a thoughtful piece, and the Seneca quote raises fascinating questions about human excellence. However, I think there's a crucial philosophical problem embedded in the claim that "reason is our defining quality" and therefore "the standard by which we judge ourselves."
Your Challenger example actually reveals the limitation of this framework. The engineers' failure wasn't primarily rational - they reasoned correctly about the O-rings. Their failure was one of courage - they lacked the strength to stand firm against managerial and political pressure. More rational analysis wouldn't have saved them; they needed what the Greeks called andreia (spiritedness, courage) to resist.
This points to a deeper issue: the Stoic reduction of all human excellence to rational excellence. When Seneca uses the Latin word virtus (virtue) to translate the Greek arete (excellence), something crucial gets lost. The Greeks distinguished between:
Arete = excellence generally (what any thing does well based on its function)
Andreia = courage specifically (excellence of the spirited part of soul)
Sophia = wisdom (excellence of the rational part)
Sophrosyne = moderation (excellence of the appetitive part)
Plato's insight in the Republic was that different parts of the soul have different functions and therefore require different excellences. You can't solve a courage problem with more reasoning, just as you can't solve a moderation problem or a constitutional integration problem by adding more rational analysis.
In clinical practice, this matters enormously. When clients need to develop healthy assertiveness, set boundaries, or feel righteous anger, telling them to "use more reason" misses the functional diagnosis. They don't need more logistikon; they need properly functioning thumos.
I've written more about how this Latin-to-Greek translation problem has distorted our understanding of virtue and excellence here:
https://open.substack.com/pub/chestersundepsyd569013/p/when-translation-betrays-philosophy?r=1ujdpz&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
The short version: when the Romans translated arete (general excellence) using virtus (manliness/courage), they collapsed Plato's functional pluralism into the Stoic monolith of "virtue as rational excellence."
Reason is certainly important - but it's one excellence among several, not the singular standard for all human judgment.
Thank you for your well-considered and informative response. In my article, I wasn’t actually thinking of it as the engineers’ failure (though it could have been that), but rather as the managers’ failure.
I need to reflect more on what you mean by “virtue as rational excellence.” Traditionally, the four virtues answer four questions:
What to do and what not to do (wisdom)
What to endure and what not to fear (courage)
What to give and what not to take (justice)
What to desire and what not to desire (moderation)
I’m not entirely sure why applying rationality to these four questions is seen as problematic. Although the Stoics were categorical about many things, I don't believe that they thought context is 100% irrelevant. This can be seen in their view of indifferents. Indifferents can be "good" or "bad" depending on the context.
It may simply come down to core beliefs. For example, if you believe in feeling righteous anger in certain contexts, while the Stoics reject it under any condition, I can see why you would reject Stoic rationality.