Existence of contemplation compels contemplation of existence

One must muster all the emotive force that is within his body to live as such. But alas, what is a body but a mere corporeal form, twixt frailty and fragility, bewitched by the changing seasons of nature and his heart. Pitiful and insignificant amongst the tumultuous machinations of modern society. Thus, a body is as a body must be, transitory, fleeting, and finicky. He roams about like a songbird in Spring looking for a perch upon which to rest for a moment. 

His body's grasp of such vicissitudes begets an earthly yearning for depth and weight. 

Yet, as modernity teaches us the brevity of corporeality, history illuminates endurant faculty. How is it that such a meager body as his gives birth to such profound and at times profane intellect? Be it not known, only surmised? Be it simple hegemony, with followers in tow? Be it the adversity and arbitration mother nature presents? To come into knowing is akin to living. One simply knows. One simply lives. Such faculty, reserved for the gods in antiquity, cherished by the common man in modernity, is surely the antonym of his corporeal form. It is the endurant fragility. It is the breath of the earth. It is the oasis in the desert. It is the light in the darkness.

He stepped out of the sanctuary long ago. In so doing he set himself on a path. This path leads only onwards. His body traverses, as decades accumulate. His mind expands as millennia unfold. First there was but one question, one contemplation. Out of this singular fixation a roiling mass of chaos and desire sprung. He is left to his path, perseverant to a fault. His fragile body will die, his edurant mind shall continue its course. 

Contemplation of it's existence necessitates both corporeality and the metaphysical. He is both. He is the endurant fragility. He is the breath of the earth. He is oasis in the desert. He is the light in the darkness.

If you were to ask this question to someone like Socrates you may get a string of equally difficult questions in reurn. However, over the last 24 centuries humans have made much progress in this subject. Laying out what constitutes a virtue in an objective and concrete way is inherently subjective and expiriential. Yet we perisist, and so, we have come to this place where a virtue is niether habitual nor inciental, but substantively intentional and hopefully consequential. 

Let us form two seperate constituents of what a virtue is: Intellectual, and Affective. 

Beginning with the intellectual we need to first examine how one might come to ascertain virtue when they see it. If we define virtue as the propensity to take the right action at the right time for the right reason, then upon witnessing someone such as this virtue would be made clear. However, an important element that seperates virtue from other positive attributes such as integrity or trustworthiness is the element of intentional consistency, which when paired with the uality of innateness gives rise to a person who has a propensity (or at least the ability) to be virtuous. Virte is innate and purposeful, like the whale who swims thousands of miles to reach her breeding ancestral breeding grounds. It is simply just understood to be the right thing to do at exactly the right moment and also for the right reasons. It is done just so. This leads us to the seond constituent, the affective element. Understanding why to act, how to act and when to act is well and good but the intellectual requires affectivity for virtues conception. The timid intellectual can never be virtuous, unless the right action is non-action, which ocurs occasionally. However, the virtuous one has the intellectual element andacts when necessary and doesn't act when non-action is required. This is why I claim virtue is hopefully consequential, for to be virtuous in theory alone is to not be virtuous at all! The mother whale who intellectually understands she must return to her ancestral breeding grounds and instinctively does so is affectively virtuous because she has acted and in so acting has done exactly the right thing at the right time and for the right reason.

Wading into the weeds of virtue ethics one sees a startling lack of a typical philosophical call to action (or non-action case dependant). This lack of stimulus is purposefull and essential to the very nature of virtue ethics. As we mentioned in the beginning espousing virtue ethics with a level of objectivity is problematic. However, there are a few axioms that can lend aid to thi issue. Foremost among these is the axiom that human expierence is subjective. Instead of battering the ramparts and laying seige to this tuatology virtue ethics proceeds to lower the port cullis and commence trade. Essentially virtue ethics uses this axiom to it's advantage by mandating that a person should act in the very way that they beleive a virtuous person would act. 

Detailing enough testimony to convince someone that there is indeed an ultimately and singular most virtuous acion for every situtation would require far too much time. Nevetheless, it is true that a person should always act in the most virtuous way they possibly can at any given moment. Leaving the largest portion of iterpretation up to the individual we will all live out the axiom of human subjectivity in our lives on a daily basis.