A conundrum for me Query: meaning of to know does little or even nothing for virtue. These emotions are caused by instincts that are incorporated into the mind at birth. I would say that Schweitzer's attachment to Jesus was of the same intensity as the attachment of Dostoyevsky to Christ.
For our Lord things are clear: you cannot belong both to this world and to the kingdom of God; you cannot have a foot in both worlds; you must choose. Further, Zeus orders a law regulating social behavior: those who do not conform to social norms are to be killed.
It is through generations of teachings that people living in such areas find this possession a necessity and way of life. The reply is here: Aristotle, the observer of life : an account of ethics indifferent to ethics.
It's not a definition of words -- but it can be defined in such a way as to make it tautological, as Xenophon does: If all men aim for what they "know" to be good, then if a man thinks he knows what he does not know, he will not aim for the good but for the bad. That is, he has no faith in philosophy as the tool for discovering how we should live our life.
Is man a rational being capable of discovering the good for himself and living a life of moral excellence, or a pleasure-driven animal doomed to an ignorant egoism?
Schweitzer's expression "the stubborn man within" is about the irrational soul, whereas my conundrum is about the rational soul.
Socrates claims to know nothing about virtue, except that he is looking for it 's form. Therefore since just actions and all other forms of beautiful and good activity are virtuous actions, it is clear that Justice and every other form of Virtue is Wisdom.