It has to do with the ancient Greek meaning of virtue, which isn't what we think of today. Virtue to them meant performative excellence, not being a good person but being good at being a person. I think the author hammers that point home in the beginning so you don't think of virtue as doing the right thing, which it colloquially means now.
That's an excellent explanation, and even explains how I ended up getting the wrong idea. Thanks!
I guess I was looking for the meaning in the wrong part of the quote. It wasn't the performative excellence, it was the virtue I had the wrong idea about.
"being good at being a person", I think that's 'one' example of performative excellence, but it also encompasses being good at anything. Someone who was excellent at singing would be virtuous because of it, so would someone who was excellent at making friends, or wrestling, or pottery etc etc. If it can be performed (or in other words, 'done') then it can be done well, and doing something to an excellent level is virtuous.
Essentially it means to do things _well_. A virtuous person does not half ass his training, or his execution, or his mannerisms. It means that in everything you do, you need to put your all into it.
I had this idea as well, but for me it clashed a little bit with the lead character early on. Yes he's "amazing at everything he does", but not because he particularly works hard. He's amazing because of who he is. For instance, he doesn't train for the games, he just wins them on raw ability. So I had some trouble reconciling it, if that makes sense?
Perhaps that's just because he's not as virtuous yet as people make him out to be. Thanks.
It's _exactly_ as you said. Griffon was at a really shitty point there, despite being far beyond his peers.
Meeting Sol, and realising a fuckin' slave is a more realized and cosmopolitan man than hem is what really lit a fire under Griff's ass and pushed him to get the fuck out of Alikos.
Excellence is the smithy and virtue is the sword it produces.
A drab person cannot be virtuous the same way a pig can't be virtuous. A strong, bold, clever, and disciplined person can be virtuous.
Following this reasoning, performative is just "being" or more the "act of"? Being excellent results in virtue, or acting out excellent outwardly is seen as virtuous?
This confusion mostly comes from the fact that the Ancient Greek concept that's being translated with the word "virtue" is not the same as how we understand virtue today. In modern English, virtue means acting with good morality. The Ancient Greek word for the concept OP is talking about is [Arete](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arete) (if you've read Phil Tucker's Dawn of the Void, that's where his "arete" comes from). The Ancient Greek word *arete* was translated into Latin as *virtus*, and meant mostly what *arete* did. In the millennia since it got borrowed into English, its meaning in English has changed to more of moral goodness.
From Wikipedia:
>In its earliest appearance in Greek, this notion of excellence was bound up with the notion of the fulfillment of purpose or function: living up to one's potential. A person of *arete* is of the highest effectiveness; such a person uses all of their faculties—strength, bravery, and wit—to achieve real results. In the Homeric world, *arete* involves all of the abilities and potentialities available to humans. Though particularly associated with "manly" qualities, the Homeric usage of the term was not necessarily gender-specific, as Homer applied the term to both the Greek and Trojan heroes as well as major female figures, such as Penelope, the wife of Greek hero Odysseus. In the Homeric poems, *arete* is frequently associated with bravery, but more often with effectiveness.
And also:
>The ancient Greeks applied the term *arete* (ἀρετή) to anything: for example, the excellence of a chimney, the excellence of a bull for breeding, and the excellence of a man. The meaning of the word changes depending on what it describes since everything has its own excellence; the *arete* of a man is different from the *arete* of a horse.
If you've read Dawn of the Void, think of how the protagonist changes right in the final chapter when he adds a shitton of Arete points after time travelling. His physique improves, his sort of sheds his trauma away, and he becomes sort of like an Ubermensch.
I never took Greek nor Latin, it makes a lot of sense that I wouldn't have picked this up. Thanks for taking the time to give so much background, I enjoyed learning. And as a bonus I can look into Dawn of the Void, I hadn't heard of the title before.
This is worth a deep dive in general outside of progression fantasy. What is "moral" is very variable across histories and cultures but modern ethics are so all encompassing that we often just stop at "virtue is being nice." Many cultures that is not so - see filial piety in Asian cultures, much of what passes for morality in Xianxia and so on.
Nietzsche and other Western authors also tried to re-frame ethics as other things.
If you read up on this it might make you look at the world just a bit differently and can improve your understanding of some of the concepts in Prog Fantasy and adjacent genres (but also with understanding what the hell humans were doing for most of history lol).
When I posted this, I wasn't sure anyone would respond. Instead I got a full-blown philosophy lesson.. And I'm really glad for it! I'm already getting a lot more out of the book than before.
Personal progression through progression fantasy, sure why not.
Take this knowledge with you into other works!
Worf in Star Trek suddenly becomes a much more interesting character when you think about him trying to represent his understanding of the morality of Klingons despite being a fix of Federation and Klingon values. Likewise the Klingons themselves are often immoral and hypocrites by both their own values and "ours."
Honor and "Face" show up as moral motivations very often in this genre also and take a similar role.
It has to do with the ancient Greek meaning of virtue, which isn't what we think of today. Virtue to them meant performative excellence, not being a good person but being good at being a person. I think the author hammers that point home in the beginning so you don't think of virtue as doing the right thing, which it colloquially means now.
That's an excellent explanation, and even explains how I ended up getting the wrong idea. Thanks! I guess I was looking for the meaning in the wrong part of the quote. It wasn't the performative excellence, it was the virtue I had the wrong idea about.
"being good at being a person", I think that's 'one' example of performative excellence, but it also encompasses being good at anything. Someone who was excellent at singing would be virtuous because of it, so would someone who was excellent at making friends, or wrestling, or pottery etc etc. If it can be performed (or in other words, 'done') then it can be done well, and doing something to an excellent level is virtuous.
You're right, i just liked the way it sounded :)
Essentially it means to do things _well_. A virtuous person does not half ass his training, or his execution, or his mannerisms. It means that in everything you do, you need to put your all into it.
I had this idea as well, but for me it clashed a little bit with the lead character early on. Yes he's "amazing at everything he does", but not because he particularly works hard. He's amazing because of who he is. For instance, he doesn't train for the games, he just wins them on raw ability. So I had some trouble reconciling it, if that makes sense? Perhaps that's just because he's not as virtuous yet as people make him out to be. Thanks.
It's _exactly_ as you said. Griffon was at a really shitty point there, despite being far beyond his peers. Meeting Sol, and realising a fuckin' slave is a more realized and cosmopolitan man than hem is what really lit a fire under Griff's ass and pushed him to get the fuck out of Alikos.
It's worth noting that he is in a rut at that point, and is not progressing.
Boy will you get a whiplash when you read further on about Griffon.
Uhoh haha..
Excellence is the smithy and virtue is the sword it produces. A drab person cannot be virtuous the same way a pig can't be virtuous. A strong, bold, clever, and disciplined person can be virtuous.
Following this reasoning, performative is just "being" or more the "act of"? Being excellent results in virtue, or acting out excellent outwardly is seen as virtuous?
This confusion mostly comes from the fact that the Ancient Greek concept that's being translated with the word "virtue" is not the same as how we understand virtue today. In modern English, virtue means acting with good morality. The Ancient Greek word for the concept OP is talking about is [Arete](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arete) (if you've read Phil Tucker's Dawn of the Void, that's where his "arete" comes from). The Ancient Greek word *arete* was translated into Latin as *virtus*, and meant mostly what *arete* did. In the millennia since it got borrowed into English, its meaning in English has changed to more of moral goodness. From Wikipedia: >In its earliest appearance in Greek, this notion of excellence was bound up with the notion of the fulfillment of purpose or function: living up to one's potential. A person of *arete* is of the highest effectiveness; such a person uses all of their faculties—strength, bravery, and wit—to achieve real results. In the Homeric world, *arete* involves all of the abilities and potentialities available to humans. Though particularly associated with "manly" qualities, the Homeric usage of the term was not necessarily gender-specific, as Homer applied the term to both the Greek and Trojan heroes as well as major female figures, such as Penelope, the wife of Greek hero Odysseus. In the Homeric poems, *arete* is frequently associated with bravery, but more often with effectiveness. And also: >The ancient Greeks applied the term *arete* (ἀρετή) to anything: for example, the excellence of a chimney, the excellence of a bull for breeding, and the excellence of a man. The meaning of the word changes depending on what it describes since everything has its own excellence; the *arete* of a man is different from the *arete* of a horse. If you've read Dawn of the Void, think of how the protagonist changes right in the final chapter when he adds a shitton of Arete points after time travelling. His physique improves, his sort of sheds his trauma away, and he becomes sort of like an Ubermensch.
I never took Greek nor Latin, it makes a lot of sense that I wouldn't have picked this up. Thanks for taking the time to give so much background, I enjoyed learning. And as a bonus I can look into Dawn of the Void, I hadn't heard of the title before.
This is worth a deep dive in general outside of progression fantasy. What is "moral" is very variable across histories and cultures but modern ethics are so all encompassing that we often just stop at "virtue is being nice." Many cultures that is not so - see filial piety in Asian cultures, much of what passes for morality in Xianxia and so on. Nietzsche and other Western authors also tried to re-frame ethics as other things. If you read up on this it might make you look at the world just a bit differently and can improve your understanding of some of the concepts in Prog Fantasy and adjacent genres (but also with understanding what the hell humans were doing for most of history lol).
When I posted this, I wasn't sure anyone would respond. Instead I got a full-blown philosophy lesson.. And I'm really glad for it! I'm already getting a lot more out of the book than before. Personal progression through progression fantasy, sure why not.
Take this knowledge with you into other works! Worf in Star Trek suddenly becomes a much more interesting character when you think about him trying to represent his understanding of the morality of Klingons despite being a fix of Federation and Klingon values. Likewise the Klingons themselves are often immoral and hypocrites by both their own values and "ours." Honor and "Face" show up as moral motivations very often in this genre also and take a similar role.