Posts by Don

Quote from Cassius

also-troubling contention that katastematic pleasure is some kind of special and higher pleasure, different in nature from any other "normal" type of pleasure, and somehow separate and apart from experience/sensation

My take: I have other thoughts on your post but this one elicited an immediate reaction from me.

To me, the only troubling part of katastematic pleasures are their continuing misinterpretation. They are not "special" or "higher". They're merely those pleasures that arise within ourselves like tranquility, pleasant memories, homeostasis, etc. They are "special" only insofar as they are the pleasures we can be most confident in having, even when we are unable to partake in kinetic pleasures like walking in the country, dancing, etc. Tranquility can serve as a foundation for fully experiencing kinetic pleasure free from anxiety.

Quote from Cassius

All this interrelationship is why I think it is ridiculous to single out and interpret "katastematic pleasure" or "tranquility" or "ataraxia" or "aponia" or any other particular word as something higher than, or special in kind, or anything more than one among many experiences of (or aspects of or perspectives on) the "Pleasure" that we use as a description of our general goal in living a full human life.

Again, I will continue to soapbox that katastematic pleasures are not special, but Epicurus, Metrodorus, and Philodemus all refer to them. They cannot be dismissed out of hand like some of those academic authors do or be singled out as *the* goal like other authors do. But Epicurus consistently stresses the importance of ataraxia *in* a pleasurable life. It seems to me he is saying it is necessary but not sufficient for a pleasurable life.

I would also translate them as stable pleasures not static pleasures. They are pleasures in which we can have confidence at all times.

Quote from Joshua

When Epicurus talks about 'pleasant expectations for the future', or 'the memory of past pleasures' he's describing mental faculties apart from sensation.

I've always been confused about this, because on one reading (from my perspective) Epicurus seems to treat the mental faculties of the mind as a sense organ picking up sensations from subtle images leading to thought and memory.

I'll have to think (pun intended) on this.

As far as the anticipations, using justice as an example, I always go back to the research on fairness done with babies and toddlers that shows a clear preference for fair behavior from basically birth before any acculturation can happen.

Quote from Cassius

1. Can you experience pleasure without a sensation being involved / give rise to it?
2. Does every sensation evoke a feeling of pleasure or pain?

1. No.

2. Yes.

How's that for being dogmatic

Quote from Cassius

1. Can you experience pleasure without an anticipation being involved / give rise to it?
2. Does every anticipation evoke a feeling of pleasure or pain?

1. Yes.

2. I don't think so. My take is that anticipations are linked to sensations somehow. But that's a sticky wicket.

While DeWitt is a little wordy and convoluted, I think I agree with the general direction he's going.

This discussion reminds me of Brene Brown's new book Atlas of the Heart. I initially dismissed her as another Oprah acolyte, but in listening to a few podcasts and interviews, I became intrigued by this book. The website is at

Atlas Hub - Brené Brown

A portal to understanding the emotions and experiences that make us human.

brenebrown.com

But I've also attached the PDF you can download there that lists the 87 human emotions she discusses in the book. I've found it interesting to look through (in a cursory way not in depth) those 87 and trying to categorize each as pleasure or pain since as we know "the feelings are two."

She lists "happiness" but I'd be curious how she describes it. One reason being that I think she does a good job in providing insightful details for each and I don't think she'd be "sloppy" with a definition for happiness. I was especially intrigued by her distinctions between awe vs wonder and also overwhelm vs stress.

Full disclosure: I haven't read the book in full but skimmed parts and seen some of her HBO show.

PS. Okay, I downloaded the audiobook from my library but it's harder to take notes from that. Anyway, Brown contrasts joy vs happiness and quotes a theologian who gives the Greek for those two: makarios for joy, khairo for happiness (note: NOT eudaimonia!). Makarios μακάριος is the word Epicurus uses to describe the gods' happiness and is often translated as blessed. Khairo χαίρω is defined by LSJ as "to rejoice or take pleasure in a thing." Brown defines joy as a "sudden, unexpected, short lasting, high intensity emotion"; happiness is "stable, longer lasting, and normally the result of effort." I realize her decision to use joy and happiness to describe these feelings may be somewhat arbitrary, but I like her slicing and dicing the emotional spectrum. I also find it interesting to try to categorize each of the 87 like I said into pleasure or pain.

I've also read back over the thread, and there are some interesting takes on the "happiness or pleasure" topic. For what it's worth, here are my two drachmas worth. Everything from here on should be read as if prefaced by "From my perspective..." Your results may vary:

• Pleasure (and pain) are biological sensations present in all life (including plants it seems after a fashion).
• As such, all life appears to pursue "pleasure" (brooaadly defined as those stimuli conducive to existence) and retreat from "pain" (again, brooaddly defined as those stimuli unfavorable to existence).
• As forms of life become more complex, pleasure begins to be experenced as a positive "emotional" response to both external and internal stimuli.
• Homeostasis within the body can be experienced as a pleasurable state in which to be.
• As forms of life become even more complex (i.e., brains get bigger and more complex) as in humans, memories can also elicit pleasure in additional to coming from external stimuli ... as in having fun.
• Eudaimonia - the slippery ancient Greek word translated haphazardly IMO often as "happiness" - results from a body in homeostasis - all the bodily functions working in a balanced way - and a mind free from anxiety. If Happiness is standing in for eudaimonia, to me it is a *description* of a pleasurable life overall.
• "Happiness" is different than saying "I'm happy about X" or "I'm feeling happy (now)" or "What a happy day." Being happy in the moment is different than happiness, the state of living a happy life overall. And I'm primarily getting this from using eudaimonia (which I prefer to translate as "well-being") as the stand-in for "happiness" in my mind.
• I must say I also like Dr. Rucker's statement that "Fixating on my lack of happiness made me label myself as unhappy."
• Personally, I think I like to think of living my life in eudaimonia/well-being by pursuing individual pleasures, both from internal and external stimuli (e.g., pleasant memories and engaging in fun activities, respectively) which I interpret myself as katastemic and kinetic pleasures. Yeah, I went there!
• So, it's not happiness/eudaimonia vs pleasure; or pleasure; and pleasure. Happiness/eudaimonia are two different things describing two different spheres. Pleasure describes a feeling experienced in the moment. I can *anticipate* future pleasure and even plan for it, and take pleasure in the anticipation now, but I can't *experience* future pleasure. I can only experience pleasure now.
• Happiness/eudaimonia is a description of how I perceive my life as a whole. "Are you happy?" almost needs more than those three words to make sense.
  
  • "Are you happy (now)?" basically means "Are you experiencing a pleasurable feeling right now.
  • "Are you happy (with your life)?" basically means "How would you assess the level of pleasure overall in your life?"
  • "Are you happy (with that sandwich)?" basically means "Are you experiencing pleasure in eating that sandwich?"
  • "Are you happy?" asked by your partner is completely different from the waiter in a restaurant pointing at your meal and asking "Are you happy (with that)?"
• Looked at it this way, "happy" is a mushy, ill-defined word that can take on any number of meanings in context. It's like the English word "love"... "I love you" to "I love ice cream." At least Greek had different words for different forms of "love."

That's probably enough rambling now. To answer the original question: Happiness or Pleasure? I'm not sure the question is answerable in any specific way since both words - to me - describe two different things. One or the other? It seems it's both to me because I want pleasures so my life tends toward happiness/eudaimonia.

FYI

The Fun Type Calculator: What's Your Type?

What type of activities do you enjoy? It depends on your fun type. Curious about what type you are? Try the Fun Type Calculator to find out.

michaelrucker.com

While the "Fun Calculator" is a little goofy, the author's website as a whole has some interesting content. I found this quote from his Start Here page interesting...

Quote from Mike Rucker

I realized trying to be “happy” only drew my attention to what was missing. Fixating on my lack of happiness made me label myself as unhappy, and I came to realize that maladaptive label was bleeding into my identity. This left me with the question: If deliberately chasing happiness leaves me miserable, what’s the alternative? Then, after years of research and trial and error, a second crucial insight clicked into place: We can’t always make ourselves happy, but we all possess the agency to find ways to be more joyful and have more fun.

...

We can’t always make ourselves happy, but we all possess the agency to find ways to be more joyful and have more fun.

...

Having fun is an action anyone can take here and now practically anywhere, anytime.

I realize I'm late to this thread but Dr. Rucker has me intrigued. I haven't read his book or delved too far into his work in the last hour but I like where he's going. I like that he says "We all possess the agency to find ways to be more joyful and have more fun." From my perspective, we could easily rephrase that to "We all possess the agency to find ways to be more joyful and have more pleasure." I like that he uses "joy" which is, in fact, one of the kinetic pleasures (εὐφροσύνη euphrosyne) AND he talks about our having agency to bring about that particular kind of pleasure. Hmm... yep, I'm intrigued.

Sum ergo sentio; si non sensibus, non sum.?

I am, therefore I feel; if no senses, I am not.

Non fui, fui, non sum, non curo

#549. Lessons From the World’s Longest Scientific Study of Happiness | Dr. Robert Waldinger — Ten Percent Happier

Dr. Robert Waldinger talks about his new book The Good Life: Lessons From the World’s Longest Scientific Study of Happiness, which explores lessons from the…

www.tenpercent.com

10% Happier podcast episode.

Lots about the importance of friends and relationships to one's happiness and well-being plus it's never too late to start which also sounds like Epicurus

"Elegance" is probably not the best translation of καθαριος so I should stop using it. Here is the LSJ entry:

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, κα^θάρ-ειος

Here's Saint-Andres note to his translation:

Quote

Translating this phrase as "an elegance in simplicity" ties it to other statements Epicurus makes about both living beautifully (e.g., Vatican Saying #17) and living simply or naturally (e.g., Vatican Saying #21).

For reference, here are those two. They don't use καθαριος but hint at that sentiment:

VS17. It is not the young man who is most happy, but the old man who has lived beautifully; for despite being at his very peak the young man stumbles around as if he were of many minds, whereas the old man has settled into old age as if in a harbor, secure in his gratitude for the good things he was once unsure of.

VS21. Nature must be persuaded, not forced. And we will persuade nature by fulfilling the necessary desires, and the natural desires too if they cause no harm, but sharply rejecting the harmful desires.

PS: I'd encourage anyone who's interested to take a look at the καθαρειος definition above and the two below and post how they would translate this opening phrase:

"There is (καθαρειος) even in (choose 1: A. λεπτότης or B.λιτοτης)..."

A. λεπτότης

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, λ , λεπτό-ρρυ^τος , λεπτότης

B. λιτοτης

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, λ , λι?́ταργ-ος , λι_τότης

I'd be particularly interested if Joshua or some of our other poets wanted to take a stab at it.

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, μεθόριος

The LSJ accepts Usener 's corrections (see link), but I'm becoming more skeptical. I need to emphasize that the word "limit" in Usener/ Bailey comes from their "correcting" the clearly legible manuscript word καθαριος (katharios) to μεθόριος (methorios).

So, Usener is "correcting" TWO words out of the initial five. They're swapping out 40% of the first five words to make it say what they want!

Manuscript: ἔστι καὶ ἐν λεπτότητι καθάριος

Usener: ἔστι καὶ ἐν λιτότητι μεθόριος

Manuscript: There is elegance (καθάριος) even in meagerness (λεπτότητι)...

Usener: There is a limit (μεθόριος) even in frugality (λιτότητι)...

So even if I accepted frugality instead of thinness/meagerness, I have a hard time accepting the word limit. If I accepted λιτοτητι "frugality" I'd still come up with "There is elegance/refinement even in frugality..."

Plus, καθαρειος "refinement, elegance" is the opposite of λιτοτης "frugality, simplicity". And that sounds to me like something Epicurus would write, with using opposites to make some wordplay. Which is inadvertently what I wrote instead of sticking to meagerness!

There is elegance even in simplicity. The one who is unable to consider this is nearly equivalent to the who falls down because of a lack of limits.

My paraphrase would be something like: There is nothing wrong with frugal, simple living. In fact, it has its own sense of elegance and refinement. If one doesn't grasp this, that person is nearly the same as one who gets cast down in life for having no limits to his desires.

Kalosyni : You bring up a good point about manuscripts. I tried to dig up everything I could find on Vat.gr.1950 that contains the Vatican Sayings:

DigiVatLib

The manuscript is contained in (and was found in) Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (the Vatican Library) at shelfmark Vat.gr.1950.pt.2 (Vatican, Greek manuscript No. 1950, part 2).

Manuscript content is dated between 1301-1350 CE.

Height: 243

Width: 165

The binding: The paper boards are covered with brown leather and are marked with straight lines. On the back are printed in gold the shields of Pope Paul VI and Eugenius Tisserant cardinal librarian.

Codex was among those who were rescued by the French in 1797 and restored in 1815 (v. seal of Bibl. Nat. Paris in ff. 1r and 545ν).

Codices Vaticani Graeci. Codices 1745-1962, recensuit P. Canart, t. I, Codicum enarrationes, in Bibliotheca Vaticana 1970 (Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae codices manu scripti recensiti), pp. 762-766.

Contents (with folio/page numbers):280r-340v: Xenophon, 427/26-c. 353 a.C. Xenophontis Memorabilia

341r-392v: Aurelius Antoninus, Marcus, imperatore romano, 121-180 <Marci Aurelii Antonini imperatoris in semetipsum libri XII>

392v-399r: Epictetus, sec. I-II Epicteti enchiridii paraphrasis christiana

401r-v: Epictetus, sec. I-II <Excerpta rhetorica>

401v-404v: Epictetus, sec. I-II <Florilegium seu gnomologium Epicureum>

408r-518v: Maximus Tyrius, sec. II <Maximi Tyrii dissertationes>

518v-540v: Albinus Smyrnaeus, sec. II Albini (Alcinoi cod.) epitome doctrinarum Platonis

542r-545v: Aristoteles, 384-322 a.C. Aristotelis de motu animaliunm

PS. I noticed that folios/pages 401v-404v has "Epictetus, sec. I-II <Florilegium seu gnomologium Epicureum>" which seems to be a misprint because it's corrected to Epicurus in parentheses. Not sure what's going on there, because those are the Vatican Sayings pages.

Quote from Cassius

the relevant text appears clearly awkward so as to indicate corruption

That's a slippery slope. Where does one just ignore the manuscripts and substitute whatever, one wants to be there?

Well, it comes down to where you decide if you're going to trust the manuscript and use λεπτότητα "elegance" or whether you're going to correct the scribe like Bailey and Usener and substitute λιτότης "limit".

And it's not elegant as in fancy. It's elegant as in not fussy. I like the connotation of the economy of movement or elegance of the surgeons hands.

Quote from Pacatus

Don How would you, personally, render V63 in English? Maybe taking a stab at both formal equivalence and a more dynamic rendering?

Be careful what you ask for...

TLDR: Here’s my attempt at a translation, a little literal, a little paraphrase:

There is elegance even in simplicity. The one who is unable to consider this is nearly equivalent to the one who falls down because of a lack of limits.

If you’re interested in how that was arrived at, feel free to read on:

I realize this post is WAY too much information and far into the weeds; but, as requested, I’m sharing my translation of VS63; however, in deference to observation by Little Rocker and my response, I’m going to “show my work” so everyone can see what I don’t know and what I had to look up.

First, we have to determine the Greek text I'm going to work with.

Muehli:

ἔστι καὶ ἐν λεπτότητι καθαριότης, ἧς ὁ ἀνεπιλόγιστος παραπλήσιόν τι πάσχει τῷ διʼ ἀοριστίαν ἐκπίπτοντι.

Usner:

ἔστι καὶ ἐν λιτότητι μεθόριος, ἧς ὁ ἀνεπιλόγιστος παραπλήσιόν τι πάσχει τῷ διʼ ἀοριστίαν ἐκπίπτοντι..

Vat.gr.1950 manuscript clearly has:

ἔστι καὶ ἐν λεπτότητι καθάριος, ἧς ὁ ἀνεπιλόγιστος παραπλήσιόν τι πάσχει τῷ διʼ ἀοριστίαν ἐκπίπτοντι.

First phrase:

ἔστι καὶ ἐν λεπτότητι καθάριος,...

There is a word καθαρειος (kathareios) which would have been pronounced as, and was later spelled καθαριος (katharios). However, καθάρειος is an adjective per LSJ:

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, κα^θάρ-ειος

With various (although similar) meanings: cleanly, neat, tidy; decent, respectable (men) > οι καθαρειοτεροι; daintiness (of food); purity. There’s also the connotation of the “economy of movement (in a surgeon's hand)” so there’s an idea of economy, of doing what’s only necessary only. That kind of elegance or refinement which is an interesting spin.

Muehli used καθαριότης in his transcription to change the adjective to a noun, but that is clearly not what is written in the manuscript. Saint-Andre accepts Muehli’s transcription and adds the note “καθαριότης means purity, cleanliness, neatness, scupulousness, integrity, elegance, refinement, simplicity, frugality, economy, etc.”

But Greek could turn adjectives into nouns to mean something like “that which is …” or “one who is…”

So, I could arguably come up with something like:

*There is refinement even in X … or Elegance is even in…X

Now, the X is the λεπτότητι / λιτότητι issue. I am reluctant to rethink the manuscript. However, my resolve wavered when I read in that definition linked above that καθάρειος is the opposite of λιτότης! This is the word that Usener uses to “correct” the manuscript. This is exactly the kind of wordplay I’d expect from Epicurus, too. But, let’s look at the actual word *in* the manuscript.

λεπτότητι is the dative of λεπτότης “thinness, opp. παχύτης (“thickness”); fineness, delicacy, opp. πάχος (“thickness”), thinness, meagreness, of body; metaphorical, subtlety.”

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, λεπτότης

Now, reviewing the Wiktionary entry for Usener’s λιτότης, λιτότητι is the dative singular. The meaning per LSJ is “plainness, simplicity” but LSJ also has that pesky “cj. for λεπτότης in Epicur.Sent.Vat.63.” meaning they thought it was the *wrong* word and that it was substituted for λεπτότης in the manuscript. But I’m not seeing that in Vat.gr.1950, and I’m not aware of any other list or text that includes this exact saying. I’m assuming LSJ is simply taking Usener et al.’s word for it? If anyone has any idea where this saying might show up in the manuscript tradition elsewhere, please share.

So, IF I take the manuscript literally, I get:

*There is elegance even in meagreness…

Paraphrase nominalizing the adjective?? *One who displays elegance even in meagreness…???

Okay, so there are the first five words!

ἧς is (per Wiktionary) the genitive singular for “who, which, that” and with the next two words - ὁ ἀνεπιλόγιστος - I can put together:

*..for the one who is inconsiderate or thoughless; …for the one who is unable to consider…

** There is elegance even in simplicity for the one who is unable to consider …

The next word παραπλήσιόν (according to Wiktionary) can either by an Attic spelling of πᾰρᾰπλήσῐος or the accusative of the word. LSJ provides various related meanings, including “coming alongside of : hence, coming near, nearly resembling ; of numbers, nearly equal, about as many ; of size, about as large ; of age, about equal.” So, the general meaning is “nearly equal” or “resembling.”

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, παραπλήσιος

τι “something”

πάσχει is the 3rd person singular active indicative (he/she/it) of πασχω and means “undergoes, experiences (vs. acting), experiences something, has something happen to one.”

τῷ διʼ ἀοριστίαν ἐκπίπτοντι. This appears to be a dative phrase with an embedded prepositional phrase inside it: τῷ (διʼ ἀοριστίαν) ἐκπίπτοντι. Let’s tackle τῷ ἐκπίπτοντι first. Ἐκπίπτοντι is a dative (to be expected from τῷ) present active participle of εκπιπτω, meaning “falling out of…; being thrown down…” It is a passive sense opposed to “throwing or casting out” (εκβαλλω).

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ἐκπίπτω

The full LSJ definition has some interesting connotations, including “to be cast ashore” or “fall from a thing, i.e. be deprived of it.”

The prepositional phrase is διʼ ἀοριστίαν which appears to mean “because/for the sake of of illimitability.” LSJ specifically cites “illimitability” as the sense used in VS63. The word ἀοριστίαν has the sense of lack of limit or even indefiniteness or even indecision. So, the whole phrase appears to be something like:

***...for the one who is falling down because of lack of limits”

That is REALLY bad English, but if you’ve stuck with me this far, hold tight.

Review:

ἔστι καὶ ἐν λεπτότητι καθάριος, ἧς ὁ ἀνεπιλόγιστος παραπλήσιόν τι πάσχει τῷ διʼ ἀοριστίαν ἐκπίπτοντι.

Here’s my attempt at a translation, a little literal, a little paraphrase:

There is elegance even in simplicity. The one who is unable to consider this is nearly equivalent to the who falls down because of a lack of limits.

With that, I’m bringing in the scholarly translations to compare results and refine my own. In light of ALL that above, I’m inclined to agree with the direction of Saint-Andre and Long & Sedley:

Saint-Andre: There is an elegance in simplicity, and one who is thoughtless resembles one whose feelings run to excess.

Long and Sedley: There can be refinement even on slender means, and one who fails to take account of it is in a similar position to someone who goes astray through ignoring limits.

I hope this all helps others to see how Long & Sedley and Saint-Andre arrived at their translations. One big change in theirs compared to others is acceptance or not of Usener's change to λιτότητι which means "austerity, frugality, frugalness, thrift." Whether one accepts what's easily read in the manuscript or whether one want to "correct" the manuscript is going to change VS63 dramatically!

These links could be of interest:

Internet Archive: Digital Library of Free & Borrowable Books, Movies, Music & Wayback Machine

Google Scholar

PS: The links are to Diels' works on Internet Archive and Google Scholar. Just realized there was no automatic description on those.

Reviews

The Invention and Gendering of Epicurus, by Pamela Gordon

The Invention and Gendering of Epicurus, by Pamela Gordon

www.academia.edu

Review of The Invention and Gendering of Epicurus, by Pamela Gordon

Review of The Invention and Gendering of Epicurus, by Pamela Gordon

www.academia.edu

Oh, and Anderson's site is the only English version of Usener's Epicurea that I know of...

Epicurus: Fragments - translation

However, Bailey follows Usener's Epicurea format quite closely... although Usener didn't include the Vatican Sayings because they weren't discovered until after Epicurea's publication! Bailey includes this in this preface:

Vatican Gnomologium. This is contained in Codex Vaticanus gr. 1950, a MS. of the fourteenth century. It was first published by C. Wotke, with some notes by Usener and Gomperz in Wiener Studien, vol. x (1888). Von der Muehll has collated the MS. again from photographs and in some cases has cor- rected the readings reported by Wotke. In the majority of these excerpts the text is fairly sound, but there are some in which it still remains very uncertain.

Here are the Weiner Studien papers from 1888 by Wotke, Usner, and Gomperz:

Wiener Studien : Schenkl, Karl, 1827-1900, ed : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Book digitized by Google from the library of the University of Michigan and uploaded to the Internet Archive by user tpb.

archive.org

And here is Usener's VS63 and footnotes:

Wiener Studien : Schenkl, Karl, 1827-1900, ed : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Book digitized by Google from the library of the University of Michigan and uploaded to the Internet Archive by user tpb.

archive.org

He does state that the manuscript says εν λεπτοτητι καθαριος in the footnote but has his "corrected" text in the body of the paper.

Quote from Cassius

I never tracked it down further - it has just seemed that everybody who is anybody in the world of Epicurus cites Usener.

Yep. He's the U in Usener Fragment