Posts by Don

Quote from Cassius

you call a spade a spade

Fascinating quick digression (fascinating to me, at least)

How ‘to call a spade a spade’ originated in a mistranslation.

originated in the mistranslation by Erasmus of Greek ‘skáphē’ (meaning anything hollowed out) as a word denoting a digging tool

wordhistories.net

τὰ σῦκα σῦκα, τὴν σκάφην σκάφην λέγων"

Call figs, figs; and tubs, tubs.

The mistranslation coming to you thanks to Erasmus (for whom we also have to "thank" for Pandora's "box" which should be a "jar" and not even possibly Pandora's).

This has been a Public Linguistics Announcement. We now return you to your previous thread, already in progress.

Quote from Cassius

And of course my interpretation of Epicurus, and my personal answer to that is "Yes, the suggested replacements are corruptions."

Which may be why some later Epicureans felt it necessary to demonstrate why those replacements were corruptions using formal arguments.

Quote from Todd

What ELSE besides pleasure do these people propose? (rhetorical question) Does that thing even exist in nature, apart from causing pleasure and pain for humans?

Virtue, piety, reason, contemplation... There are a few propositions. Their argument is that pleasure can't be trusted as the goal because it's shared with the "lower" animals and is part of our "animal" nature, not our "higher/better" *human* nature. Reason or virtue are truly "the good" because it is the fullest expression of our humanity.

Quote from Todd

Maybe the transition to Latin was where it all started to go wrong.

I think that could be said for a lot of things

Quote from Todd

Pleasure just is. Attaching other labels to it doesn't make it more impressive.

I think I would argue in the other direction (just thinking out loud...don't hold me to this): everything we think of as good, we ultimately consider good because it produces pleasure.

But there are schools and people who say pleasure can lead you astray from a happy, fulfilling life, therefore it must be repressed, avoided, or rejected outright. Establishing it as the goal - that to which all else points - short circuits that argument.

Quote from Todd

I've also been trying to avoid The Good, etc. because I don't think that is even an Epicurean concept.

The concept predates Epicurus, but he was more than willing to weigh in on the controversy/ argument by using that specific term, ταγαθον "the good." It seems to me that Epicurus acknowledged the debate and felt he could swoop in with the only solution that made any sense. I believe that he believed there was indeed ONE thing to which all else points and it IS pleasure. (Epicurus drops the mic, walks off stage.)

I think you have to establish pleasure as "the good" before you start to use it as your criteria. Otherwise, it's just an assertion. By establishing pleasure as that to which all else points, you've set an end point - a goal - on which one should stay focused.

Quote from Todd

There are 2 relevant concepts:

Pleasure (aka The Good, The End, Telos)

goods

I have not seen anyone arguing that there is overlap between those 2 categories

Thanks.

So, here's my (current) thinking:

1. The Good/ The End/ Telos / Summum bonum for Epicureans is pleasure.
2. I think this is correct, i.e., makes the most coherent argument.
3. There are a limited number of candidates in answer to "What is The Good?" Other philosophies have different choices, but, to Epicureans, all other candidates are means to the end of pleasure.
4. Those are all in one category.
5. Pleasure is then the criteria (the yardstick, the canon) by which we determine if something is to be considered a good thing or a bad thing from a human perspective.
6. However, we use reason, with the criteria in 5, to determine what good things are conducive to living pleasurably.

Reserving the right to extend and revise my remarks

Does this list move us closer together, Todd ?

Quote from Todd

Yes. I said this before too. The Good, The Chief Good, The End, Telos...these are all not the same things as goods.

LOL! Have we been talking past each other all along? (i.e., Have I been missing your point all along or simply misunderstanding?)

Quote from Cassius

1 - And another candidate then and now would be "religion" or law of god.

Agreed. Let's call that one Piety.

Quote from Cassius

2. ...you never get to questions of how to pursue pleasure of you don't establish pleasure to be the goal in the first place

Agreed, but we have to remember we have so few texts left. Epicurus undoubtedly addressed some of the "techniques" and therapy issues in other lost works, especially in reading the titles of some of those works. He hints at things like this when we writes about the "endless string of drunken parties and town festivals" not being conducive to living a pleasant life.

In taking a look again at Cicero:

Quote from Cicero, on ends, 1.42

42 "Pleasure and pain moreover supply the motives of desire and of avoidance, and the springs of conduct generally. This being so, it clearly follows that actions are right and praiseworthy only as being a means to the attainment of a life of pleasure. But that which is not itself a means to anything else, but to which all else is a means, is what the Greeks term the Telos, the highest, ultimate or final Good. It must therefore be admitted that the Chief Good is to live agreeably.

"Those who place the Chief Good in virtue alone are beguiled by the glamour of a name, and do not understand the true demands of nature. If they will consent to listen to Epicurus, they will be delivered from the grossest error. Your school dilates on the transcendent beauty of the virtues; but were they not productive of pleasure, who would deem them either praiseworthy or desirable?

So, the "highest good" = the Chief Good = summum bonum "highest or ultimate good" = Latin for telos τέλος "completion, maturity, accomplishment, fulfillment, perfection, consummation;result, product; end; boundary, border, extremity; supreme power" = tagathon ταγαθον, literally "the good"

The Chief Good is a category unto itself. It is "that which is not itself a means to anything else, but to which all else is a means."

So the discussion was about determining what was the end point of All human action, what should humans base their actions on. For Epicurus, it was clearly pleasure if you wanted to live "agreeably." For Stoics, it was virtue; but Epicurus (via Cicero via "Torquatus") says they are "beguiled...on the transcendent beauty of the virtues; but were they not productive of pleasure, who would deem them either praiseworthy or desirable?"

So, candidates for the telos/Chief Good were things like virtue, pleasure, wisdom. This is a select subset of traits or phenomena that could serve as the prime foundation for all choices and rejections. For a Stoic, virtue should be the foundation of this.

This category of candidates for Chief Good is NOT the category of every "good thing" that produces pleasure. That's a whole separate thing.

Paper: The concept of the good (tagathon) in philosophy before Plato

https://philarchive.org/archive/PACTCO-8v1

Quote from Godfrey

Yet the argument blithely proceeds....

Maybe it was just to try and shut Socrates up.

"By Zeus, yeah, sure, I agree with you. (Now please, just shut...)"

"Ah, but what about..."

"Yeah, okay! That, too. (Just please, shut the...)"

" And yet,..."

"Excuse me, I have to go to the bathroom."

"Ah, when you return we shall talk about..."

"Oh, I'm not coming back.. (By Zeus, what a @#$&!)"

Quote from Cassius

still say some very "sharp"
things about philosophical opponents!

LOL. Let's say "frank" things

This was a fun video from the visual effects guys on YouTube:

Quote from Little Rocker

Plato is a slippery bastard

It always warms my heart when I read things like this. Makes me feel better for thinking Socrates was an annoying jerk. Not sure I would have voted to convict and condemn him, but his disregard for his wife and children are at the top of my list for holding the opinion that he was a jerk.

I think I like where Godfrey is going.

I'm wondering if we're (me included) of we're getting the technical/philosophical meaning of "good" and the colloquial/everyday meaning of good conflated.

I'm starting to think that within the philosophical debates going on among Platonist, Aristotelian, Epicureans, Cynics, Stoics, et al., that there was a set of traits or phenomena that were under discussion as to which one was the one "to which all others point": Pleasure, Courage, Virtue, Practical wisdom, Contemplation, Piety, etc. The debate seems to then have been which of these were the telos/summum bonum, making the others means to that literal end. Epicurus clearly came down on the side of pleasure, making all the others subordinate. Those are the "goods" of which, according to the Epicurean school, pleasure is the telos/"highest good." I may even have to go back and research what those things were called as a group. It may not even be "goods."

The colloquial use of the adjective "good" - as in describing anything as "this is good" - is predicated on its producing pleasure: "all pleasure is 'good'" at least to the Epicureans. The other schools would not consent to that characterization I'm sure. It appears that what is good is contextual.

Just came across this. Haven't had a chance to peruse, but here it is:

The Good in Ancient Philosophy | open.conted.ox.ac.uk (beta)

agathon ἀγαθόν good — often with a connotation with utility and advantage (for the agent), i.e. ‘good for’

Quote from Cassius

And that leads to "the highest good" having multiple meanings

See, I don't agree with that. The "highest good" or summum bonum or τέλος telos is "that to which all other good things points." You can paraphrase that as need be, but that's the definition as I see it in the texts.

Todd That summary was very helpful to get us back on track and to clearly present your position. Thank you! I am taking pleasure in this discussion, and hope I've engaged in a respectful manner.

Of course, I have thoughts ...

Quote from Todd

1) There is no such thing as a good (or a bad) in nature. The concept of a good is a product of human reason. So first we need to define what a good is (or stop talking about them).

I would agree that humans are the ones to assign concepts to natural phenomena. That said, from the human perspective, there are good things and bad things in nature with respect to their effect on humans. And I'm consciously using "good thing" and "bad thing" not the platonic sounding "good" and "bad."

Quote from Todd

2) How would we define a good, using only the tools nature gave us? Pleasure and pain seem like the obvious tools for the job.

I found the LSJ definition of αγαθός instructive in that it used words like benefit to define the word. A "good thing" provides a benefit of service. That's why other schools can say virtue or reason are "good things." For Epicureans, a good thing is that which leads to pleasure. Likewise, a bad thing produces pain.

Quote from Todd

3) A good, then, is something that produces pleasure. Producing pleasure is not just a property that goods happen to have. It is the very standard by which we are able to say they are goods at all. It is the ONLY property of a good, as such. Everything that has this property is a good. Nothing that lacks this property is a good.

I *think* I agree with that. I'll admit I'm still parsing that paragraph. There's a lot going on in there.

Quote from Todd

4) So is pleasure a good? Does it produce pleasure? No, it IS pleasure. Therefore, it is not a good.

That's an interesting question. I still maintain that pleasure is that to which all goods point, or, to be more exact to my thinking, pleasure is the ultimate motivation underpinning all....

Hmmm. That's not right. Hmmm, I'm going to have to cogitate on this a little more.

It remains a fact that Epicurus used the word "good" and "the good." It behooves is to understand why.

Quote from Todd

Don suggested an idea earlier, that there is a category called Goods that includes pleasure and a sub-category called Instrumental Goods. (A Venn diagram would be handy here.)

Well, I have to share thoughts on that Now I'm not so sure on that, but as I said above, those are Epicurus's words (well, not instrumental. I'm going to have to dig a little more on this one).

It seems my action item is to define "good" if I want to stay the course on that topic. Stay tuned.

Sounds good.

Quote from Todd

I'll cut him some slack if he made a few mistakes, or occasionally said some things that were not consistent.

There's also the ongoing issue that so much of what Epicurus "said" is filtered through unreliable and hostile witnesses, ex., Cicero, Plutarch, et al.

Quote from Cassius

the Plutarch fragment:

“That which produces a jubilation unsurpassed is the nature of good, if you apply your mind rightly and then stand firm and do not stroll about, prating meaninglessly about the good.” Epicurus, as cited in Usener Fragment U423

Does that fragment mean "anything that produces pleasure should be considered good" and you should not obsess over other implications of the word 'good'"?

Come with me, this way, down another tunnel in the rabbit warren:

That Plutarch fragment is a little more complex than I first realized. That specific excerpt is a little misleading. Here's the link to Perseus:

Plutarch, Non posse suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum, section 7

(Emphasis and notations added)

Quote from Epicurus as reported by Plutarch

Like unto this is that of Epicurus, where he saith: The very essence of good arises from the escaping of bad, *and* a man's recollecting, considering, and rejoicing within himself that this hath befallen him. For what occasions transcending joy (he saith) is some great impending evil escaped; and in this lies the very nature and essence of good, if a man attain unto it aright, and contain himself when he hath done, and not ramble and prate idly about it.

The archaic language is hard to parse. Bailey provides more context:

Quote

That which creates Joy insuperable is the complete

removal of a great evil. And this is the nature of good, one can once grasp it rightly, and then hold by it, and not walk about babbling idly about the good.

Is Plutarch saying that Epicurus said don't talk about "the good" or don't talk about escaping the evil that brought you pleasure? Just experience the pleasure of escaping the evil and move on with your life? That's going to take some parsing in Plutarch's Greek.