From The "Golden Mean" to tbe "Summum Bonum" - Useful or Deceptive Frames of Reference?

    Quote from Kalosyni

    sometimes wisdom is a primary tool for making choices and other times pleasure works best as the primary tool for making choices... and sometimes both wisdom and pleasure at the same time

    From my perspective, wisdom (practical wisdom/phronesis) is always subservient to pleasure. We use wisdom to pursue pleasure, to make choices on immediate pleasure or postponing pleasure. Pleasure is always the goal. Wisdom is a means to get there.

    Further thoughts on "post-philosophy"...


    If we can't or don't want to agree on exact definitions of words (because of several reasons) then how do we do philosophy?


    1) We can't agree because certain words themselves are too abstract, and to give an exact definition will mean that we are no longer "doing philosophy" and instead we are now in the realm of psychology/self-help...which personally I am okay with that. But there will not be one "right way"...and I am okay with that too.


    2) If we want to agree on one definition that will force us into trying to find the "right" answer or one "right" formula. Do we really think that there is always one right answer to everything?


    So I would suggest that the best way out of this conundrum is to accept that we need to move toward a more open-ended way of approaching the world. This is not skepticm, because we can say given the assertion A... then if you do B or if you do C, then there is a likelihood that W, X, Y, or Z will result. The results are not infinite. They are dependent on the inputs. We can be certain that something will result from our actions, and there may be a higher likelihood of one result over the other, but sometimes we won't be able to know until we take action (so you have to choose based purely on which option has the greatest anticipated pleasure without depending on reason). In Buddhism there is a phrase called "skillful means" and we can learn from our previous experiences. You could then analyze backward and ask: "When do the best results happen? What causes the best results in decision making?"


    On the flip side of what I just said about there not being one right way...is that as Epicureans we could take specific stands on things, as to which things in life bring the best pleasure and as well as the most pleasure over the longest time...so that would be: don't do such and such, but instead do X Y Z.

    To respond to the original topic, both [1] Aristotle's Golden Mean and [2] the Romans' framing of Epicurean Voluptas as the Summum Bonum are misrepresentations of Epicurean ethics. While Epicurean philosophy is compatible with the phrase Summum Bonum (MEΓIΣTON AΓAΘON), the Summum Bonum is not described as HΔONH (pleasure), but as ΦPONHΣIΣ (prudence). It would have been more accurate for the Stoics to have written "SVMMVM BONVM EST PRVDENTIA".


    If Stoic and early Christian authors had described Epicurus as having taught "PRIMVM BONVM EST VOLVPTAS", then that would cohere with Epicurus' statement that HΔONH is the ΠPOTON AΓAΘON (versus the MEΓIΣTON AΓAΘON).


    Even so, we have found that Epicurus uses a variety of cases, tenses, and inflections of AΓAΘOΣ (or "good") to describe pleasant things, instrumental actions, a noble standard, a category of virtues, and an expression of pleasure. The abundance of this term leads to a cultural and linguistic displacement of "the Good" from its Platonic throne. It becomes reduced it to a frank, non-technical meaning, usually indicating either as "a pleasant thing", "that which is pleasant", or "pleasantness".


    I propose that, unlike other Hellenistic philosophers, Epicurus did not see the question "What is the Supreme Good?" to be as fundamental to his ethics as the question "What is the goal of life?" Therein, the phrase Summum Bonum can be misleading because it frames Epicurus as having been a sort of "Goodness Ethicist" who presupposes the existence of a Supreme Goodness, versus a sort of "Purpose Ethicist" who begins his inquiry by observing nature.


    I would view any mention of Summum Bonum in Epicurean philosophy with at least a little bit of suspicion.

    Quote from Nate

    we have found that Epicurus uses a variety of cases, tenses, and inflections of AΓAΘOΣ (or "good") to describe pleasant things, instrumental actions, a noble standard, a category of virtues, and an expression of pleasure. The abundance of this term leads to a cultural and linguistic displacement of "the Good" from its Platonic throne. It becomes reduced it to a frank, non-technical meaning, usually indicating either as "a pleasant thing", "that which is pleasant", or "pleasantness".

    I don't know as much as you do about this, Nate (and Don ...and many others in this forum!) but I would hope the above is correct regarding Epicurus. Trying to lock down a term like "Summum Bonum" / "Greatest Good" or "The Most Important Thing" etc is something that doesn't resonate with what I "feel" from Epicurus and EP. Even the term pleasure is referencing something with variation and nuance beyond what that word can capture. It is possible to focus to much on terminology. I mean I realize one has to be clear, but one can also spend too much time on it. At the end of the day, it seems to me the EP life should be measured by its practical results in a person, not in the beauty or consistency of its philosophical terminology or even its rationality .

    It strikes me that one reason we're getting tied up in knots about this is our trying to reconcile ancient Greek and Latin sources. For me, any Latin source will always - always! - be secondary to an ancient Greek source, even Cicero or even (*gasp*) Lucretius. Lucretius was using Epicurus as a source but had to translate what he found there. Any ancient Greek source can quote verbatim from Epicurean sources without the need for translation into a different language and idiom. The Greek sources are going to be debating using shared cultural memes, maybe vehemently disagreeing but most likely coming from a common background. A Latin source is, for me, always going to be - to use a Zen metaphor - looking at the finger pointing to the Moon and not looking at the Moon directly. Latin is like, to put it a different way, looking at the Moon's reflection in the pond and not looking at the Moon itself. English is even worse, especially if it's a translation of a Latin source! That's like reading a description of the reflection of the Moon in the pond! Getting hung up on summum bonum is, in some respects, pointless. Epicurus didn't use that phrase, Philodemus didn't use that phrase (who knows, he may have used it in conversation with his Roman friends but he certainly didn't need to use it in his texts), Diogenes Laertius didn't need to use that phrase, etc. For me, to understand what Epicurus and the Epicurean school taught, we always need to return to the Greek.

    This is why I'm becoming more intrigued with the word τἀγαθὸν which appears in Epicurus and Philodemus as well texts from before Plato, in Aristotle, in Plutarch... And that's just what I found this morning poking around online. I think that's what the Romans were trying to "point at" with their summum bonum, but I'm finding I don't care as much now. I'm becoming curious about the significance of τἀγαθὸν itself within that Greek cultural milieu and why it was so widespread. Epicurus couldn't conceive of τἀγαθὸν "without the joys of taste, of sex, of hearing, and without the pleasing motions caused by the sight of bodies and forms." τἀγαθὸν is not simply ἀγαθὸς "good" with "the" definite article slapped on the front. It is an ancient Greek cultural meme, endlessly debated for hundreds of years from before Plato (428 BCE) through Aristotle through Plutarch (119 CE) and beyond to even 15th-century Christian theologians (see https://epistole.wordpress.com…efit-of-a-humanist-ethos/ ). I'll have more to say at some point. For now, that's where my head is at.

    To my knowledge, TAΓAΘON is not found in the texts of early Ionian philosophers (whom De Witt identifies as being a philosophical inspiration for Epicurus), and Democritus rarely uses TAΓAΘON in favor of the abundant TAΓAΘA or "the goods" (https://philarchive.org/archive/PACTCO-8v1). Where we cannot find many instances of TAΓAΘON in Epicurean writings, and their older cousins, we find an abundance of the word in the writings of his contemporary and earlier opponents.


    I did just notice that Epicurus only refers to ΦPONHΣIΣ as "the greatest good", but never as "the good", "the first good" or "The Good" which he explicitly uses elsewhere to reserve for "pleasure". So, I think I see what you mean, Don.

    I agree with most of what is written above, but one additional point I would include is that the Latin authorities were much closer to the Greek language and to the Epicurean texts than we will ever be (as to both).


    So when we know that someone like Lucretius is trying to be faithful, I think their interpretations are entitled to great deference, even to the extent of considering them to have much more expertise than our own efforts to grasp the Greek.

    Quote from Cassius

    I agree with most of what is written above, but one additional point I would include is that the Latin authorities were much closer to the Greek language and to the Epicurean texts than we will ever be (as to both).

    I can respect where you're coming from, but it's still a secondary filter with their own cultural assumptions coloring the interpretation.

    Quote from Cassius

    So when we know that someone like Lucretius is trying to be faithful, I think their interpretations are entitled to great deference, even to the extent of considering them to have much more expertise than our own efforts to grasp the Greek.

    One issue with Lucretius is that we know virtually nothing about the person. Where did study? Did he just have access to Epicurus's On Nature and some letters and teach himself (granted, as we do!) or did he learn his Epicurean philosophy from an authoritative teacher of the school itself? I've seen some papers that argue he was unaware of some contemporary Epicurean thought.

    As far as deference, my preference would be - wherever possible - to compare two Greek sources to see how they're using terms and concepts either in comparison or contrast. But again, I respect where you're coming from, but the Latin authors - especially Cicero - are still one step removed from the original sources. There's some evidence that Cicero used Philodemus for the Torquatus material. In which case, I'm going back to Philodemus and see where he can illuminate Cicero, not the other way around.


    PS... I should say that it's not that I don't think the Latin sources are important! By Zeus, we have so few sources to begin with! But I am saying that, for me, defence will always be given to Greek sources. De Rerum Natura is priceless, *but* I want to squeeze everything I can out of every scrap of Lucretius's *sources* especially Epicurus's On Nature. That's why I'm trying to translate the texts in Les Epicuriens that I haven't been able to find anywhere else. Granted, it's like reading a description of the reflection of the Moon in the pond through sunglasses (fancy designer French sunglasses) but it's all I got 8)

    Quote from Don

    but it's all I got

    I think I am going to suggest to the podcast team that our next stop after we finish Torquatus in the next couple of weeks will be to go back to Epicurus' own letters, Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoeceus, in that order.


    Especially Herodotus I don't think we have given nearly the attention it deserves, and we are much better equipped to do that now after going through the last two years of podcasting.

    Ok in less than an hour I will have the third zoom meeting on A Few Days In Athens up and I will post it here. Most of that discussion turned out to revolve around issues similar to what we are discussing here. I don't add much myself that you haven't heard already, but Kevin Guilfoy (the philosopher teacher) has some interesting comments on one and many goods, comparing Epicurus view of the highest good to the Stoics, etc. I am sorry I did not get this posted earlier! Unfortunately this week I had to produce three separate productions, and I am finding that two is about my productive limit.

    The discussion from Chapter Three where Kevin (who is a philosophy professor) touches on some of the issues we are discussing in this thread.


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    I wonder if we can begin to summarize practical takeaways from this thread. Would they include something like the following?


    1 I think most or all of us are unimpressed that the idea of a golden mean is very helpful for much of anything, and it is likely more of a harmful oversimplification than a help.


    2 To the extent that someone asks us to explain what was Epicurus' position on "the greatest good," would the explanation start with a statement that "greatest good was not Epicurus' preferred formulation, which instead was ________________." (?)


    3 That to the extent "greatest good" is taken to imply that there are multiple independent goods that can be ranked, Epicurus' viewpoint was distinctively that:

    A. In order to be classified as good a thing must produce pleasure / remove pain, and

    B. That these pleasures and pains are both bodily and mental so we are talking about an innumerable variety of pleasures and pains, not just immediate bodily sensations, and

    C. That any ranking of pleasures and pains is substantially personal and contextual and although generalizations can be made (i.e., being boiled in oil is very unpleasant for most people) there is no final list that is absolute for everyone, and

    D. That there are an innumerable number of things that are instrumental in producing pleasure, including the classical virtues and many other things. While there is no absolute ranking of these, Epicurus specially noted that among the most important are friendship and prudence.



    If this is way off let's keep working and try again and see where we can improve it.

    To all contributors to this thread (including Kalosyni and Godfrey, but most especially Don, Nate & Cassius): I'm going to delete this post after leaving it up long enough for you to read it, because I'm not adding anything of substance here and I don't want to clutter things up. I only wanted a way to say I continue to be deeply impressed and am SUPER excited to see where this thread has been going! It "feels" like Epicurus is really being uncovered and his voice is becoming possible to hear even though he must speak to us through the accumulated dust of so many centuries and translations and a whirling dervish of individuals and idioms and tropes and cultural paradigms. This is the kind of detective work that the academy should be doing but it seems that to date has been done so much less than is needed, and I just can't imagine how you do this level of work - and keep up your "day jobs"!!! :huh: :) :S Thank you so much for all your incredibly valuable contributions to understanding EP in this thread (AND in all the others!). This is such a significant and insightful philosophy with such potential to add sanity to the world, and it's so very unfortunate that besides the great sense of satisfaction you must enjoy from this work, there is no other award you earn more than some trophy icons in the EF! ?( X/  :rolleyes:


    I just can't thank enough. I wish there were a glorious host of supernatural angels to applaud from heaven! :)


    Bowing low,

    -S

    Other than the credit being more than we deserve, I'd be happy to see you leave a version of that up, as it does provide encouragement to everyone to continue.


    Also, what you are describing is very close to the reason we started the forum in the first place. The academics don't have the motivation to restore a practical understanding of Epicurus that laymen (those who are not experts in philosophy) can understand. At very best most of the academics are eclectic and just looking to add a few twists to their existing paradigms. In any case, their primary goal is not "popularization" of the philosophy.


    I think giving Epicurus a chance requires a complete review of all the basics with fresh eyes, and that more than anything else I think is why Norman DeWitt set the model for the approach. We may differ with him on some details, but he was the first and most effective major modern academic writer to devote his career to Epicurus and try to present his entire philosophy accurately but also sympathetically to a wider audience. I don't think anyone yet has surpassed him or even tried to duplicate what he produced in "Epicurus And His Philosophy."


    What we are doing in threads like this is picking up where he left off, updating it with the latest discoveries, and fine tuning some of his interpretations.


    The next step after that is harnessing the technology to create true online cooperative "schools,'" and then extend that into real-world events and relationships. I use the plural because I think we'll have lots of people doing something similar as time goes by, but they need the formulations and other raw materials that we are working on here. This forum germinated from relationships formed on Facebook, and from this forum and what we can develop here and elsewhere lots more is possible.