Response Dom Cooper/My thoughts on moral thoughts

Response to Dom Cooper's post "Moral Versus Intellectual Virtue"
My initial intention was to agree with your thoughts, not providing much personal opinion.  The following passage from your post, however,  compelled me to explore further:  "Morality would not exist without action...morality is the endeavor of looking at whether our actions were right or wrong."
I became immediately intrigued with the issue of the connection between "moral" and "virtuous" actions and moral thoughts.  How do they relate to one another? Are they separate entities or  does it rely on a universally understood notion that all actions require either conscious or subconscious thought? Can a clear distinction be made that separates these two processes, or are they innately interconnected.  I would love to believe that by examining my actions I could establish a virtuous pattern of morality- however not every action we partake in exhibits reason and good. Imagine the life and purpose of a monk (please excuse my stereotypical reference, I am attempting to create a particular visual that is common to our limited cultural understanding and by utilizing a <possibly> false stereotype the desired image is conjured)- my actions of selfless commitment requires repetitious action and often conscious thought is intentionally forsaken.  Who would evaluate my actions were moral? Would Aristotle believe by containing oneself to their beliefs and not imposing on others that their actions embody morality? My elaboration may have digressed from your original post, I tend to do that. 

Elaborating on Prior Arguments

We have been extensively discussing in class about the concepts of compatibility and incompatibility in reference to the theories of determinism and free will.  The debate has remained a constant tug of war between differing viewpoints; each side citing hypothetical and actual experiences, concepts of humanity and the natural world, and the totality of human purpose and presence.  Does this debate impact the importance of individuals? Can we judge a person due to their opinion on this particular subject? If we are judging must we be for the opposing side?
Quite obviously there will be no definitive answer in the debate of determinism and free will- as each person formulates their opinion and acts accordingly. Is this our free will to choose or is it determined that we will decide one way?
 If I was a determinist I would make decisions believing that there was no alternate options- I was destined to choose accordingly and therefore all my questions and answers are justified.  If I believed in free will I would remove myself from conventional decisions and act (almost completely) on impulse. Therefore, I would be solely responsible for all my choices and actions- a responsibility that most avoid confronting.   I remain unbiased in this debate- tending to not accept either theory in absolute distinction- I am simply "determined" to be "free" in my decisions. 

It's About Time

I decided to blog about a particularly interesting topic we had in class discussion today. The issue of time intrigued me- how is it defined, what determines the expansions and limitations, is there a truly universal time register that all humans adhere to or have we become so accustomed and reliant on time to structure our thoughts/actions/and moods that without it our personal direction would be destroyed? 
I began to think about the origins of time.  The natural occurrences that happen after a certain allotted time (sun up, midday sun, sun setting, nightfall) undoubtedly formulated the concepts of time we now have. Would it be a better gauge of life if we forgo the conventional system of seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years etc. and focused "time" on the changes of all aspects of the world.  This is to say that what defines time would not be a numerical system but an individual perception of the physical and intellectual evolution of living beings and the natural and manual developments of objects.  Would this system crumble due to differing abilities of people (considering lack of senses i.e. blindness)- most likely.  Therefor the past would be recollected as personal memories removed from rigorous dates and focuses on the capacity for each individual to recognize their chronology.   Justifiably, it would never work; just an interesting concept I mulled over.