New Graphics: Are You On Team Epicurus? | Comparison Chart: Epicurus vs. Other Philosophies | Chart Of Key Epicurean Quotations | Accelerating Study Of Canonics Through Philodemus' "On Methods Of Inference" | Note to all users: If you have a problem posting in any forum, please message Cassius
I can't help thinking that this is the reason why Lucretius seems to me to be saying the same thing over and over in various passages, just using different words, as if that's not just poetry but the way to triangulate on precise meanings:
Do I remember correctly that Lucretius specifically writes about having difficulty translating Greek words/ideas into Latin... Or am I thinking of Cicero?
I would be "confident that I had made the best choice among the agreeable (or less disagreeable) available alternatives." I can make peace with using "content" in that context as part of the overall picture ("I am content that I did the best I could to choose among the available alternatives"), but I think in the current intellectual environment it probably makes sense to be clear about the full meaning of "content."
Well put. I can go with that, and that is the idea that I was getting at. I purposefully did not want to use "happy" because I don't want to use "happy" for eudaimonia. But your explanation shows how thorny of a problem it is trying to translate ideas across languages using a single word.
I would agree that a term like "psychological hedonism" is only helpful up to a point. The "truth" - if we want to call it that - to me remains that...
All living beings move toward those stimuli that produce positive/pleasurable/growth-enhancing effects move away from stimuli that produce negative/painful effects.
Which leads me to ponder: Epicurus used the term pathe to refer to pain and pleasure (per Diogenes Laertius) - Πάθη δὲ λέγουσιν εἶναι δύο, ἡδονὴν καὶ ἀλγηδόνα. They say the feelings (pathe) are two: pleasure (hedonen) and pain (algedona).
Pathe, at its most basic, is simply "what is done or what happens to a person." There is no evaluative feature, at its most basic, involved in pathe. It is literally "what is done or what happens to a person."
Which leads me to ask: Is Epicurus talking about basic nociception when he refers to pain? "Nociception provides a means of neural feedback that allows the central nervous system (CNS) to detect and avoid noxious and potentially damaging stimuli in both active and passive settings. The sensation of pain divides into four large types: acute pain, nociceptive pain, chronic pain, and neuropathic pain." (Source)
I don't think so, at least not quite. We've talked before on this forum about pre-cognitive/pre-rational/pre-evaluative nature of the Canon, including pathe/feelings. I get the idea from reading the Epicurean texts that pleasure and pain come unbidden. We "experience" these feelings. They happen to us without our volition. We "experience" pleasure whether we want to or not. We "experience" pain whether we want to or not. That is the "truth" that Epicurus and the Epicureans are working with. The natural well-functioning of a living being is to feel positively/pleasure when something pleasant happens to us and to feel negatively/pain when something "noxious or potentially damaging" is happening to us.
Now, that doesn't mean we don't suffer from pain, but suffering is separate from the experience of pain. Experiments have been done where subjects can endure the "pain" of their hand in an ice bath longer if they're allowed to swear, curse, yell, howl, etc. If they're silent, they can't endure the pain as long. They "suffer" less if they're allowed to have agency in their behavior.
Furthermore (agreeing with Cassius above), humans have the unique ability to obfuscate and obstruct and corrupt the normal, well-functioning of the body and mind with rationalizations, dogmatic assertions, twisted ideals, empty unlimited desires, etc. It seems to me that Epicurus calls humans to get rid of all those obfuscations, obstructions, and corruptions and return to a normal, natural, healthy, well-functioning state.
That's where I come down on seeing pleasure as the telos/summum bonum/highest good. Everything a natural, well-functioning being does moves it away from "pain" and toward "pleasure." The motion is always - ultimately - toward positive stimuli, positive effects, and positive outcomes and away from "noxious or potentially damaging" stimuli, effects, and outcomes. Humans (and some animals) can "choose" to undergo hardship or pain in order to move - ultimately - to pleasure. Even a parent "choosing" to undergo pain or even death to protect their children is choosing pleasure in that they may find - even in their imagination - the prospect of not doing everything to protect their child unbearable. In fact, running into a burning building to certain death to try to save your child may very well be an application of "even on the rack, the wise one is content."
Is psychological hedonism the same as saying "motivated by your own self-interest"?
I don't necessarily think working for one's self-interest is bad; however, I also don't see "psychological hedonism" as being defined that way. At least in my mind.
I would see it as closer to the Britannica definition: "the view that all human action is ultimately motivated by desires for pleasure and the avoidance of pain." That's what makes pleasure the summum bonum and the telos. It's at the end of every series of questions asking "Why did you do that?" To make up a contrived example:
We may not be conscious of every action's motivation ultimately lying in pleasure (positive affect to use the psychological emotional circumplex: Pleasant affect = what Epicurus calls pleasure Unpleasant= what Epicurus calls pain), but the human urge to seek out pleasure/positive affect and avoid pain/negative affect/ is present in ALL life forms, even plants move toward sunlight and food sources and amoebas seek out food and avoid dangers to their existence. Humans have just done a better job of hiding that most basic drive away and covering it over with justifications, rationalizations, etc.
Someone who says they do something because it's virtuous ultimately has to admit ... LOL, well they don't have to admit it... that it makes them feel good... it's pleasurable to them... to act virtuously. And so on.
The "self-interest" part can be selfish altruism. If I treat others well, I hope in turn that they will treat me well. And treating people well and kindly gives me pleasure; results in positive affect. If I treat others poorly, I will experience negative affect... I may be paranoid or anxious that someone will "get even" and so on.
See also:
"there really is no such thing as a completely “selfless” act."
The whole article (which it appears was written by Guido Santini) might be interesting in translation or anyone who can read Italian:
For those looking for the original Latin text of Raimondi 's letter:
Not exactly scholarly but...
In the modern period, "happiness" is the customary translation for eudaimonia in classical Greek ethics (beatitudo in Latin): the perfection or realization of a person's function as a human being, which is presumed to be the ultimate human good, the goal of goals.
...
Boethius uses two terms usually translated today as "happiness": beatitudo and felicitas. When Geoffrey Chaucer translated this work into English in the 14th century, he did not translate either term as "happiness." I doubt whether the idea would have crossed his mind. Instead, he rendered felicitas as "felicitee" (which was already available), and he coined a felicitous new word for beatitudo: "wellfulness."
Beatus
Perfect passive participle of beō (“make happy”).
Felicitas
"From fēlīx (“happy; blessed, fortunate, lucky; fertile, fruitful; prosperous; auspicious, favourable”) + -tās (ultimately from Proto-Indo-European *dʰeh₁(y)- (“to nurse, suckle”))." - Wiktionary
Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary, fēlīcĭtas
Beatus , if I remember, is the word most often used by Cicero that gets translated "happy."
To my understanding, beatus is best understood as the Latin for μακάριος (makarios) "blessed"... Although, I suppose, a case can be made that it translates ευδαιμονία (eudaimonia). I suppose the same case can be made for felicitas.
It would be helpful if we could find a direct ancient Latin translation of a Greek text.
The last few interviews I've seen with him, I thought he was looking rough. That is sad news. I found his ideas thought-provoking and continue to wrestle with his views on free will. I found him compelling, common sensical, approachable, and down to earth. His voice will be missed, but his writings and videos will remain.
Well lived, Dr. Dennett.
τὴν τοῦ ὅλου βίου the whole/entirety of life
μακαριότητα makariotēta "most, highest blessedness" - the superlative of the same word used in PD1 to describe the gods
Just started listening... Thanks, Joshua , for the kind words regarding my guest appearance and the commentary. Much appreciated.
... Seen on Instagram
a start...
Welcome aboard!
The anguish on Cassandra's face and her hand holding her head as if she has a migraine from Apollo's curse of foresight (that no one will believe) is heartbreaking!
PS. Natalie Haynes did an amazing job of portraying Cassandra's plight in the novel A Thousand Ships.
