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
-- ?
-- ?
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.
For consideration:
https://www.berkeleywellbeing.com/happiness-definition.html
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."
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?
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. 
Didn't the ancients discuss "the most pleasant life" rather than happiness?
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.
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!"]
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)
insisted that the best translation for eudaimonia is "flourishing."
My personal preference is "well-being," playing of the literal breakdown of eu + daimon.
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.
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."
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.
