Pleasure vs Happiness (?) Discussion of Hiram's "In Defense of Eudaimonia"

Quote from Hiram

So eudaimonia / happiness is a legitimate Epicurean philosophical inquiry.

Quote from Hiram

Can you explain in what way one deprecates pleasure by rescuing the meaning of eudaimonia?

Exactly in the way that the Lampe quote that you included implies - in the great majority of modern conversations, "happiness" is an abstraction, a platonized alternative to the real experience of pleasure."

Eudaimonia is a Greek word that means nothing to most people not schooled in ancient Greek, and it has all the hazards of confusion in using an untranslated words. But even "Happiness" has the same ambiguities: it is often used to mean totally different things to different people, even though the only real commonality that is going on in that discussion is the issue of finding it pleasurable.

But if someone means "pleasure" then why don't they SAY pleasure? Is it not because the word has been so slandered and despised by the mainline religions and philosophies (both before and after the time of Epicurus) that it is a word that is shied away from in "polite company"? This is exactly what Cicero said when he wrote that you could not appeal to pleasure in the Senate or in the legionary camps, and it is exactly the issue.

Anti-Epicurean philosophies prevail over Epicurus largely because they have convinced people that "pleasure" is disreputable. Using a non-translated word just papers over the problem, and this is similar with "ataraxia," which is also a term that has no well-defined meaning, but people throw around with a wink and a nod as if it is the answer to every question.

So the answer to your question is that using a term like "happiness" and "edaimonia" is perfectly acceptable, just like using the term "gods" is acceptable, if you are explicit in your definition. And just as with "gods" we have a context today in which no one understands "gods" in the Epicrurean way, and no one understands "happiness" or "eudaimonia" in the Epicurean way either.

Use of happiness/eudaimonia without full contextual definition introduces the same ambiguities and issues that use of "absence of pain" ataraxia / aponia does, and I would reply to that in the same way. Used without definition in standard discussions among people who cannot be expected to know the full context is a prescription for disaster, just like Ataraxia / absence of pain has led commentary on Epicurus down the road of asceticism and minimalism, which is why Epicurus has been kicked to the curb throughout the world. And Epicurean philosophy won't come off the curb so long as we follow along in the standard discussion which conveys to the minds of most normal people that Epicurus isn't worth the time of day to discuss.

Aside: I think we are seeing close-up the hazards that arise from not taking the DeWitt approach and pointing out early and often how Epicurus was in revolt against his predecessors, and how the war with Stoicism was very real.

A lot of people seem to think that Epicurus was right in line with the rest of the Greeks and just decided to embrace atomism and applied a word twist on pleasure/absence of pain - but that otherwise he was substantially similar. And that's where a lot of this Stoicism-love comes from that we see so often among people who come to the forums for the first time.

What I am calling the DeWitt approach was to point out how profoundly Epicurus was rejecting Platonism, and that includes Aristotle before Epicurus and the Stoics afterwards.

It's hard for us today to appreciate the depth of that difference because most of us are not well versed in Plato (especially Philebus) or the details of Aristotle on the meaning of "happiness."

But it's worse than that we are not well versed. The truth is the modern world, religious AND secular, has fully embraced the heart of the non-Epicurean viewpoint, and they recognize that it is an enemy that they think needs to be stamped out, so they demonize discussion of "pleasure" and the Epicurean view of non-absolute virtues. I think most of us sense that that is how they play their mind-control games, because they know that the Epicurean view strikes at the heart of their intellectual and civil power structure. That means we face more than just educating ourselves about the ancient context and determining what Epicurus meant.

It means that at the end of the day, when we find out what Epicurus really did mean, we are going to find that we are a very small minority in a very hostile world, and that we had better stick together on core issues if we ever hope to be more than isolated gnats waiting to be swatted by the organized opposition,

I will turn to you whenever I need optimism Todd -- in the meantime I have to go battle some Stoics!

Todd can you remind me of your background? You've read DeWitt recently? Have you also read any of the Cambridge or other books recently, such as for example Catherine Wilson? What do you consider to be your main source of Epicurean reading? Lucretius? What translation?

Don't worry if it takes too much time to respond; no problem, but i do think it is interesting and helps analysis to get a fix on the main sources in a person's reading. Of course some here for all I know could be professors and read in the original Greek or Latin! And you may have read far more than I have!

And how much Plato or Aristotle or Stoicism have you read?

I may have to set up some kind of general profile question because I really think this is interesting data.

Quote from Todd

Edit: I neglected to mention that I discovered DeWitt via NewEpicurean.com, so I have you to thank for that!

Excellent!

Thanks for taking the time to write the description. That tells me that I need to focus on aspect of the "survey" on how much of the "original sources" people have read.

For example, have you read Diogenes Laertius from start to finish? Have you read any of "On Ends"? I have only recently discovered myself that while the Epicurean sections are of tremendous interest, the entire rest of the book too gives great insight. It is as if - and I did not realize this - Cicero was really setting out to cover all the bases from all the schools and give a good grounding in each. So there is a LOT to be learned even from the other chapters.

I am totally with you on the difficulty of Lucretius. I started and stopped reading it so many times over 50 years that I can hardly remember. But I finally got past my problems, and now I see it as a true gold mine. That is why i'm getting interested in a book review series on that -- I think if we can make that more accessible we can really add something to the discussion.

I am thinking that I need to set up some kind of spreadsheet with these core books.

How about Frances Wright? Did you read "A Few Days In Athens?"

I agree on all points Todd, even on "A Few Days in Athens." Your comment on DL reminds me that in the last couple of years I did read (listen) to the full set of 12 books in his series, and yes that was extremely helpful, especially on the Stoics and Plato, and interesting too that he kind of downplays Aristotle (if I recall).

I am now late in life seeing that reading the full set of Diogenes Laertius plus Cicero's On Ends would be a tremendous grounding for anyone interested in ancient Greek philosophy. had I read those early on my path would have been a lot easier. And now that i have read them I see that they aren't really "work" to read either -- DL especially can be fairly fun, as he likes to tell a lot of amusing anecdotes about each philosopher.

Those two are easily accessible and yet sit on shelves everywhere unread.

This thread has pretty much expired but I came across this today from a professor who has written on Epicurus and I want to preserve this so I can find it later:

https://pages.wustl.edu/ericbrown/research

From the same professor's page: