Social Media - Facebook

    Quote from Cassius

    How do you set up an outline of Epicurean happiness without ever mentioning "pleasure"?


    But after laughing out loud it really make me mad, or better stated, resolved to do as much as possible to improve the situation.

    Right! And so how would we list The Factors of Happiness?


    -- the study of philosophy (and right understanding of death/God/choices & avoidances, etc.)

    -- good friends

    -- the daily fullness of pleasure

    -- ?

    -- ?

    Quote from Kalosyni

    And so how would we list The Factors of Happiness

    That leads back into the question whether happiness is a feeling or an abatraction - the "map vs the territory issue.". As a feeling, we can say we feel happy and that's that.


    But as an abstraction we can list generalities that generally lead people to consider themselves to be happy, but it's probably not possible to create a definitive list because each situation is different. (And I really should not hedge with that "probably.")


    As a map the word happiness helps us define the goal, but I think we have to remember that there is a major limit to what we can list within a definition - no definition can fully convey a feeling.

    On that last point - of the difference between happiness as a feeling and happiness as an abstraction (the issue of the difference between maps and the real world):


    Torquatus:

    Hence Epicurus refuses to admit any necessity for argument or discussion to prove that pleasure is desirable and pain to be avoided. These facts, be thinks, are perceived by the senses, as that fire is hot, snow white, honey sweet, none of which things need be proved by elaborate argument: it is enough merely to draw attention to them. (For there is a difference, he holds, between formal syllogistic proof of a thing and a mere notice or reminder: the former is the method for discovering abstruse and recondite truths, the latter for indicating facts that are obvious and evident.)


    Letter to Herodotus:

    First of all, Herodotus, we must grasp the ideas attached to words, in order that we may be able to refer to them and so to judge the inferences of opinion or problems of investigation or reflection, so that we may not either leave everything uncertain and go on explaining to infinity or use words devoid of meaning. [38] For this purpose it is essential that the first mental image associated with each word should be regarded, and that there should be no need of explanation, if we are really to have a standard to which to refer a problem of investigation or reflection or a mental inference. And besides we must keep all our investigations in accord with our sensations, and in particular with the immediate apprehensions whether of the mind or of any one of the instruments of judgment, and likewise in accord with the feelings existing in us, in order that we may have indications whereby we may judge both the problem of sense perception and the unseen.



    Diogenes Laertius:

    The internal sensations they say are two, pleasure and pain, which occur to every living creature, and the one is akin to nature and the other alien: by means of these two choice and avoidance are determined. Of investigations some concern actual things, others mere words. This is a brief summary of the division of their philosophy and their views on the criterion of truth.

    For consideration:

    What Is Happiness and Why Is It Important? (+ Definition)
    Do you think happiness is the same thing to you as it is to others? Find out!
    positivepsychology.com


    https://www.berkeleywellbeing.com/happiness-definition.html


    What We Get Wrong About Happiness, According To A Real Happiness Professor
    There's a Yale class that teaches students how to be happy. We asked the instructor to share some of her lessons.
    www.huffpost.com


    Commentary:

    I come back to the Greek (big surprise) with eudaimonia instead of English "happiness." I know Cassius isn't keen on using untranslated Greek words but I think words like eudaimonia or ataraxia can also jolt us out of preconceptions and make us reexamine what we mean when we use an English word casually. I don't think "well-being" is exactly synonymous with "happiness." I think a sense or feeling of well-being can be more stable while happiness can be fleeting. But maybe that's just me. I think that's why it is SO important to know what word is used where in texts when translations use "happiness."

    From The Aesthetics of Joy blog:


    "One of the first things I learned in my research was that happiness and joy are different things. I know I’m a broken record about this, but it’s such an important distinction that I want to take a moment to pull them apart. Happiness is a broad evaluation of how we feel about our lives over time. It’s made up of a range of factors: how we feel about our health and our work, whether have a sense of meaning and purpose in life, how connected we feel to other people. This explains why sometimes we can’t easily answer the question — happiness is a big concept, and it can be hard to encapsulate the complexity of our lives in one answer.


    "Joy, on the other hand, is much simpler and more immediate. Psychologists define joy as an intense, momentary experience of positive emotion. Joy can be measured through direct physical expressions, like smiling, laughter, or a feeling of wanting to jump up and down. It’s about how good we feel right now, in the moment. It’s the opposite of vague — when we feel a moment of joy, there’s no doubt.


    "With this distinction clear, I realized that happiness is often a red herring. Thinking about whether I’m happy takes me out of the flow of my life and prompts me to evaluate and compare. Am I happier than I was a year ago? Am I as happy as my friends? That smiling influencer I follow on social media sure looks happy. If I’m not that happy, am I really happy at all? Without a clear benchmark, I find I’m often measuring against some imagined ideal of happiness, and it’s easy for my everyday life to fall short.


    "But as I began to focus more and more on moments of joy, I noticed that I stopped thinking so much about happiness."


    5 ways my work has changed my life - The Aesthetics of Joy by Ingrid Fetell Lee
    What can the science of joy teach us about living well? In this post, find five ways you can harness joy to build a life you love.
    aestheticsofjoy.com


    I'm not exactly sure where pleasure fits in to this view... Seems like it would encompass both happiness and joy, and all that's in between the two?

    I didn't read the link but the distinction in the text you quoted seems to be making the same point.


    We can "feel happy" and know it just by observing the feeling (which is pleasurable). But if we start looking to evaluate "happiness" and whether we meet that evaluation, it's a much more intellectual process that involves a lot more than feelings.


    I actually think "joy" has the same issue (and really, the issue is not with the particular word, but with "words" in and of themselves). I can no doubt feel it when I am joyful, but if I were asked to sit back and construct a written definition of the word "joy," that would be just about as difficult as the word 'happiness."


    I think the issue that has to be articulated is that we have to be clear that "feelings" are the true guide of life. We can do out best to construct "maps" and write down all sorts of definitions of "happiness" and "pleasure" and "joy" and eudaimonia and everything else, but in the end we have to be clear about the limits of words. Words are maps and they are highly useful, but elaborate definitions can only serve that "map" function -- they cannot be equated with or confused with the feelings themselves. Trying to equate them in every respect leaves us confused and frustrated and shouldn't even be attempted without first making clear this difference between feelings and concepts.

    This morning a song came to mind. When I was a teen I went to private singing lessons and my teacher had me practice Broadway hits. One song that stuck with me is from Oaklahoma (and since back in time I had no idea of the story line from this play it has a kind of simplicity for me).


    Part of the lyrics:


    Oh, what a beautiful mornin'
    Oh, what a beautiful day
    I've got a beautiful feelin'
    Everything's goin' my way


    And further thoughts -- that there are so many variations of feelings, and sometimes thinking about them makes it even better!


    But I would say that the consideration of happiness is very important, and any kind of furtherance of Epicureanism will depend upon how we present our ideas of happiness, what happiness is, and how to increase happiness. :)

    Quote from Godfrey

    Didn't the ancients discuss "the most pleasant life" rather than happiness?

    Epicureans or in general?

    Happiness is the usual English translation of ευδαιμονία eudaimonia.

    I've actually just started today deciding to work thru Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics and he uses eudaimonia and makarion and they are translated happiness and supreme happiness.

    Quote from Don

    Happiness is the usual English translation of ευδαιμονία eudaimonia.

    I had a friend of mine who did his PhD on the Nichomachean Ethics, and insisted that the best translation for eudaimonia is "flourishing." I would think this can fit with Epicurus, where the most flourishing life is one defined in terms of pleasure. For myself, I tend to use "happy well-being" (where I intend well-being to be the opposite of ill-being -- say, tarache and pone). And I take happiness as a feeling and a sense of pleasurable/pleasant well-being, not an (Aristotelian?) abstraction. [I sometimes get the impression that, for the Stoics, eudaimonia reduces to a kind of self-righteous pat on the back: "Look how virtuous I have been! What a happy feeling!"]

    Quote from Cassius

    We can do out best to construct "maps" and write down all sorts of definitions of "happiness" and "pleasure" and "joy" and eudaimonia and everything else, but in the end we have to be clear about the limits of words. Words are maps and they are highly useful, but elaborate definitions can only serve that "map" function -- they cannot be equated with or confused with the feelings themselves.

    I think this whole "the map is not the territory" is of bedrock importance. And the point is always to measure the map against the (real/experintial) territory -- and not the other way around (which, it seems to me, a whole lot of religionists do). Objectively, empirical investigation can reveal the general territory -- but, in terms of sensual and emotional experience, we are each our own navigator.


    Maps, as you say, are helpful -- but the map can only guide to the territory (like the Zen parable of fingers pointing to the moon); and that understanding in itself might separate Epicurus (and his writings) from his philosophical rivals. The Platonists and the Stoics (as I understand them) privilege their maps over the territory; maybe Aristotle, too.


    It is so easy (at least for me) to get lost in this or that map. And to thereby lose sight of the territory right here ...

    “What a useful thing a pocket-map is!” I remarked.


    “That’s another thing we’ve learned from your Nation,” said Mein Herr, “Map-making. But we’ve carried it much further than you. What do you consider the largest map that would be really useful?”


    “About six inches to the mile.”


    “Only six inches!” exclaimed Mein Herr. “We very soon got to six yards to the mile. Then we tried a hundreds yards to the mile. And then came the grandest idea of all! We actually made a map of the country, on the scale of a mile to the mile!”


    “Have you used it much?” I enquired.


    “It has never been spread out yet,” said Mein Herr: “the famers objected: they said it would cover the whole country, and shut out the sunlight! So we now use the country itself, as its own map, and I assure you it does nearly as well”


    (Lewis Carroll, Sylvie and Bruno Concluded)

    Quote from Pacatus

    insisted that the best translation for eudaimonia is "flourishing."

    My personal preference is "well-being," playing of the literal breakdown of eu + daimon.

    Quote from Pacatus

    For myself, I tend to use "happy well-being" (where I intend well-being to be the opposite of ill-being -- say, tarache and pone)

    And don't forget there's the literal opposite of eudaimonia, kakodaimonia.

    Quote from Pacatus

    not an (Aristotelian?) abstraction

    I'd say Platonic. I was surprised in Book I of Nichomachean Ethics that Aristotle doesn't like Plato's abstract Ideal Forms. I think I know this but he's basically like "I liked Plato but I am not a fan of the Forms."

    Quote from Pacatus

    I sometimes get the impression that, for the Stoics, eudaimonia reduces to a kind of self-righteous pat on the back: "Look how virtuous I have been! What a happy feeling!"]

    And from which they get pleasure. LOL. It just always seems to end up with pleasure! No getting around it.

    Don I have read parts of Nichomachean ethics but not all. My understanding of one of the major issues is that Aristotle ultimately has no good foundation for what is virtue or the best life other than looking around to see what the leading citizens of Athens choose to do. So that flourishing or whatever terms he employs end up being without a clear foundation such as "pleasure" or even "do what the gods tell you to do" (religion). Even his "prime mover" position ends up being useless in providing a clear guide stone, and his tendency to try to explain things through categorizing then (which only plays games with names and ultimately solves nothing) does not save him either.


    I am sure my comments there are overbroad so I will be very interested in your commentary of how you see the Aristotle - Epicurus difference shaking out when you finish.