Posts by Don

Quote from Kalosyni

Here is an excerpt from the above article (found in the Notes number 1):

Quote

Aristotle, in fact, identifies a tripartite division of goods: external goods (ektos agatha ), somatic goods (ta soma agatha ), and psychological goods (ta peri psychen agatha). In this tripartition, the external goods include only goods external
to the body, like money, while bodily goods like health are called somatic goods. However, Aristotle typically collapses the categories of somatic and external into one, indicating the real distinction he wants to draw: that between psychological
goods and everything else. Aristotle takes this division to be commonplace (P1323a24-26), as does Plato (cf. Euthydemus 279b, Philebus 48e).

I was rereading this, and it struck me that Epicurus seems to riff off of Aristotle's categories in a couple ways. First, somatic goods (ta soma agatha ), and psychological goods (ta peri psychen agatha) sound like the health of the body and the serenity of the mind, namely aponia and ataraxia. soma σῶμα is just Greek for "body" (plus some other connotations in the polysemous Greek) and psyche is "mind" (for our purposes, but sometimes translated "soul"). I was also reminded of the division of the necessary desires in the Menoikeus letter:

Quote

of the necessary ones: on the one hand, those necessary for eudaimonia; then, those necessary for the freedom from disturbance for the body (αἱ δὲ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἀοχλησίαν); then those necessary for life itself.

You had me at "polysemous"

Quote from Pacatus

I recalled having seen English translations that rendered μακάριος as “happy” – including in the beatitudes. The two I found are Young’s Literal Translation (1898) and the Good News Translation by the American Bible Society (1976).

There seem to be SO MANY specific Greek and Latin words that get chopped down to just "happy" in English.

Case in point: VS48 ( Pacatus 's footer) -

While you are on the road, try to make the later part better than the earlier part; and be equally happy when you reach the end.

πειρᾶσθαι τὴν ὑστέραν τῆς προτέρας κρείττω ποιείν, ἕως ἂν ἐν ὁδῷ ὦμεν· ἐπειδὰν δʼ ἐπὶ πέρας ἔλθωμεν, ὁμαλῶς εὐφραίνεσθαι.

which is related directly to εὐφροσύνη (euphrosúnē) mirth, merriment; gleefulness; etc.; especially of a banquet, good cheer, festivity

εὐφροσύνη - Ancient Greek (LSJ)

Again, sorry for derailing this thread. The big picture takeaway I'm encouraging everyone to consider is this:

When we read:

"You must study and meditate upon that which produces eudaimonia/happiness. For if indeed that is present, we have everything; if that is not present, we do anything to have it." (Menoikeus 122)

We have a current, contemporary idea of what "happiness" means, and eudaimonia doesn't *really* mean anything to us. Words have meanings, but those meanings are not static. They evolve. Did Jefferson mean the same thing we mean when he penned "pursuit of happiness"? No, not really... But are they related? Sure? Maybe? But not exactly. I'm advocating we know what we mean - what we all mean and agree to - before we assume we're all talking about the same thing. Epicurus advocated use of the ordinary or common usage... But we have to know what those ordinary and common usages of words were *at the time* the texts were being composed.

I find it interesting that if Cicero is using beatus, that's the exact word used in the Beatitudes in the Latin Vulgate Bible with the original Greek being makarios.

"In the Latin Vulgate, each of these blessings begins with the word beātī, which translates to "blessed" (plural adjective). The corresponding word in the original Greek is μακάριοι (makarioi), with the same meaning. Thus "Blessed are the poor in spirit" appears in Latin as beātī pauperēs spīritū. The Latin noun beātitūdō was coined by Cicero to describe a state of blessedness and was later incorporated within the chapter headings written for Matthew 5 in various printed versions of the Vulgate."

If we're going to say that...

Quote from Cassius

Epicurus also talked about happiness as what we are aiming for. Epicurus defined happiness to mean total pleasures predominating over total pains, as he (for example) experienced in his last days while happy but in extreme pain.

(which I agree with), it behooves us to know how Epicurus talked about eudaimonia.

Letter to Pythocles, 116:

For the animals offer no necessary reason why a storm should be produced ; and no divine being sits observing when these animals go out and afterwards fulfilling the signs which they have given. [116] For such folly as this would not possess the most ordinary being if ever so little enlightened, much less one who enjoys perfect felicity. (παντελῆ εὐδαιμονίαν pantele eudaimonian > pan "all" + telos "goals" > a well-being where all goals have been met)

Then we have all of the mentions of eudaimonia in the letter to Menoikeus.

Plus there are translations that use "happiness" in place of makarios (as in the blessed happiness of the gods) like this in the letter to Herodotus:

"Further, we must hold that to arrive at accurate knowledge of the cause of things of most moment is the business of natural science, and that happiness (μακάριον makarion) depends on this (viz. on the knowledge of celestial and atmospheric phenomena), and upon knowing what the heavenly bodies really are, and any kindred facts contributing to exact knowledge in this respect.

So if one is to be not only possessing eudaimonia but also be considered makarios, that feeling/state/condition also "depends on" knowledge of how the natural world works... most likely because we would otherwise not know how to pursue pleasure wisely and would be subject to empty fears and empty desires.

I'm sorry to have taken this thread on a tangent; however, from my perspective, here are some Vatican Sayings that speak to the idea of satisfaction:

VS35 Don't ruin the things you have by wanting what you don't have, but realize that they too are things you once did wish for.

VS67 A free person is unable to acquire great wealth, because that is not easily achieved without enslavement to the masses or to the powers that be. Instead, he already has everything he needs, and in abundance. But if by chance he should have great wealth, he could easily share it with his fellows to win their goodwill.

VS68 Nothing is enough to one for whom enough is very little.

VS69 The ingratitude of the soul makes a creature greedy for endless variation in its way of life.

It's not being stagnant or complacent. It's appreciating the things you do have, gaining pleasure from what you do have, without always grubbing for the next thing or always struggling for the thing you don't have. We miss our lives as they fly by if we live that way. Of course, one can work to achieve more comfort, more steadiness, more stability in one's life. Philodenus wrote a whole treatise on managing ones affairs well. But if we don't stop and pluck the ripe fruit when it is available, we miss our one life.

Quote from Cassius

Satisfaction of desires isn't sufficient there either because you still have to ask "what desires?"

To my mind, from an Epicurean perspective, it's not satisfaction of "specific" desires but more being satisfied - taking pleasure - in what is currently available... while at the same time being open to luxuries when they become available. It's the "maza and spring water" (barley bread/meal and water) in the Letter to Menoikeus. It's taking pleasure and satisfaction in the day to day things, not scraping, striving, fighting, etc after "empty" desires like unlimited fame, unlimited wealth.

Quote from Bryan

"Happiness" is not incorrect

Well put! It brings to mind people saying "You're not wrong, but..." Thanks.

Here's the Liddell & Scott definition of eudaimonia:

https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do…4.0057:entry=eu)daimoni/a

A translation of Herodotus uses "prosperity" for eudaimonia in one place, but "happiness" is used in the translation of the story of Croesus (same word, two different translations):

Thus Solon granted second place in happiness (εὐδαιμονίης) to these men. Croesus was vexed and said, “My Athenian guest, do you so much despise our happiness (εὐδαιμονίη) that you do not even make us worth as much as common men?”

A translation of Thucydides uses "wealth" for eudaimonia:

[5] For of all the nations of Europe that lie between the Ionian Gulf and the Euxine Sea, it was, for revenue of money and other wealth (καὶ τῇ ἄλλῃ εὐδαιμονίᾳ), the mightiest; though indeed for strength of an army and multitudes of soldiers, the same be far short of the Scythians.

So, there is a dimension of satisfaction, prosperity, being well off, having a sense of satisfaction, that isn't encompassed in "happiness." As Bryan says, "happiness isn't wrong..."

Quote from Cassius

In our discussions we aren't targeting writing a Greek dictionary, we're targeting the practical concept of "happiness," which "everyone agrees" is the goal of life.

I haven't thoroughly read all the thread (looks like a good discussion), but here's my first reaction to that statement. Fully agree we aren't writing a Greek dictionary, but...

We are obligated to know what we're talking about. I would hazard that the average person thinks of "happiness" or "being happy" as a - as we've been saying - a titillation of the mind, a pleasant stimulation of the senses. If you ask someone if they're happy, I would guess that they're going to be befuddled if they're just walking down the street and get asked. "I guess so. I'm doing okay."

The fact that ευδαιμονια is the word being referred to, it behooves us to know what is meant by that word. That's my big beef in just accepting that "it means 'happiness' and going on with the discussion (not just here but all over the internet, books, etc.). It's just taken for granted that eudaimonia = happiness, now let's use happiness. Which brings me to the Declaration of Independence's "pursuit of happiness."

I went and looked up in Samuel Johnson's 1768 edition of his dictionary and looked up "happiness"

A dictionary of the English language. Abstracted from the folio ed., by the author. To which is prefixed, an English grammar. To this ed. are added, a history of the English language [&c.].

books.google.com

Would people nowadays equate "happiness" with "state in which the desires are satisfied"? I think most people think of happiness as being more smiling people at a dinner party, having lively conversation. "I'm so happy!"

Which brings me back to my unending soapbox blathering that I think "well-being" is a much better translation of eudamonia than "happiness." "Well-being" gets at that satisfaction aspect that I think happiness misses (maybe it's a part of it but it doesn't square up well) and that I think eudaimonia actually encompasses. One feels lucky, satisfied, living a fortuitous existence... I know we don't think much of "fortune" or "luck" but from an everperson-off-the-street stance, I continue to picket for "well-being" being the better translation of that word to which Epicurus and the Greek philosophers were pointing.

(Steps down off soap box and goes back to reading thread...)

People, were talking the late 1700s here. Grammar is not what it used to be.

The whole idea with that phrase was that the Constitution would be "closer to being finished, more complete, more fully formed" than the wonky, loosey-goosey Articles of Confederation.

The Constitution, in the eyes of the Framers, made the United States of America closer to a real country rather than a conglomeration of individual states (ie, their own countries).

Quote from Wikipedia

To form a more perfect Union
The phrase "to form a more perfect Union" has been construed as referring to the shift to the Constitution from the Articles of Confederation. The contemporaneous meaning of the word "perfect" was complete, finished, fully informed, confident, or certain. The phrase has been interpreted in various ways throughout history based on the context of the times. For example, shortly after the Civil War and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court said that the "Union" was made "more perfect" by the creation of a federal government with enough power to act directly upon citizens, rather than a government with narrowly limited power that could act on citizens only indirectly through the states, e.g., by imposing taxes. Also, the institution was created as a government over the States and people, not an agreement (union) between the States.

Quote

The riddle is better suited to oral than to written exposition,' and indeed Epicurus' description of it in our passage implies that he has recently witnessed its use in debate, perhaps in a direct confrontation between Epicureans and Megarians. Such a clash must almost certainly have occurred in Athens. ... The correct. Epicurean retort to the sophist must be to say, 'You have asked me a question about actions, and a purely verbal argument can never answer it satisfactorily. The only proof- that I will accept is an empirical one (επιλογισμος). Only when I see how one can lead one's life well according to the principle that it is possible to know and not know the same thing will I believe that the princ'ple is true '.

... Epicurus then sums up the error of the sophist's victim as failure to work out by (επιλογισμος) (ουχ επελελογιστο , 10 sup.) that in normal circumstances it is impossible to know and not know the same thing, and that the sophist has merely played upon an exception to this rule.

FYI

Epicurus, On nature, book 28

Epicurus, On nature, book 28

www.academia.edu

These kinds of "paradoxes" seem so disingenuous to me. They seem to just play on the ambiguity of language to *appear* to make some kind of deep point. The Covered Father seems to me to simply be using the different meanings of the word "know." Of course, IF the person under the cloth was uncovered, the son would know the father. But how is someone supposed to know a hidden or secret fact before it is "uncovered." Okay, so maybe we (or the ancient Greeks) should have different words for "know"... and we do... and so did they! We have

appreciate
experience
learn
notice
perceive
realize
recognize
see

as synonyms with other shades of meaning to "know." When I read The Covered Father in Book 28, I found it silly, and it appears to me the Epicurus had the same reaction: "everybody can easily laugh when somebody gets another to assert that it is impossible to know and not know the same thing, and then cites the riddle of the Covered Father,".

That hypothetical "Don" character sounds like one sharp cookie

Quote from Cassius

even be compared to eel

Oh, I loves me some eel. I've never had it other than as sushi (grilled unagi), but I order it regularly when we get sushi. Sooo good.

Yes, Very different. But that can be a contentious matter.

Learning modern Greek isn't a bad idea as a start. Just realize that the grammar and even meanings of words won't translate (no pun intended) into understanding ancient Greek.

Here's another translation of that Seneca quote, starting a lttle earlier in the letter (LXVI.8-9 )

"Therefore the power and the greatness of virtue cannot rise to greater heights, because increase is denied to that which is superlatively great. You will find nothing straighter than the straight, nothing truer than the truth, and nothing more temperate than that which is temperate. 9. Every virtue is limitless; for limits depend upon definite measurements. Constancy cannot advance further, any more than fidelity, or truthfulness, or loyalty. What can be added to that which is perfect? Nothing otherwise that was not perfect to which something has been added. Nor can anything be added to virtue, either, for if anything can be added thereto, it must have contained a defect. Honour, also, permits of no addition; for it is honourable because of the very qualities which I have mentioned.[5] What then? Do you think that propriety, justice, lawfulness, do not also belong to the same type, and that they are kept within fixed limits? The ability to increase is proof that a thing is still imperfect."

Seneca is saying that a virtue is limitless, it is infinite in that nothing can be added to it *because* it has no limits. If something could be added, it wouldn't be infinite. It seems to me it's the "adding" part that is important. Epicurus comes along and says pleasure has a limit (the removal of all pain) but, by definition, once all pain is removed and pleasure is complete, no more pleasure can be added. Therefore, as Senea says "the power and the greatness of virtue cannot rise to greater heights, because increase is denied to that which is superlatively great. You will find nothing straighter than the straight,..." Epicurus answers that by saying pleasure cannot rise to greater heights than the absence of all pain, therefore, pleasure cannot be added to once it has replaced all pain.

To me, VS33 speaks to this "perfection" of the gods, using Zeus as the stand-in for the divine nature. To me, VS33 doesn't speak to the perpetuity of feeling not hungry, not thirsty, not shivering in the cold; BUT if you have experienced the state of being satisfied - not being hungry, thirsty, or shivering in the cold - you have competed with Zeus for well-being.

VS 33. The body yells out not to be hungry, not to be thirsty, not shuddering in the cold; for anyone who has these things and who has confidence in continuing to have them in the future, they may compete with Zeus for well-being. (my own translation)

σαρκὸς φωνὴ τὸ μὴ πεινῆν, τὸ μὴ διψῆν, τὸ μὴ ῥιγοῦν· ταῦτα γὰρ ἔχων τις καὶ ἐλπίζων ἕξειν [hope or expect to have] κἂν <διὶ [dative of Zeus]> ὑπὲρ εὐδαιμονίας μαχέσαιτο. [contend/compete]

φωνή f (genitive φωνῆς); first declension

• sound
• Usually of the human voice: voice, cry, yell
• The voice or cry of animals
• Any articulate sound (especially vowels)
• speech, discourse; language

εὐδαιμονίας - eudaimonias "well-being" (usually rendered "happiness" but I don't like that )

μάχομαι

• (with dative) I make war, fight, battle
• I quarrel, wrangle, dispute
• I contend, compete

μαχέσαιτο appears to me to be "The POTENTIAL OPTATIVE expresses the opinion of the speaker about the possibility or likelihood of an action"