 |
| CICERO DISCOVERING THE TOMB OF ARCHIMEDES BY B. WEST |
711. De Finibus Book 2 by Marcus Tullius Cicero.
Torquatus defined the final end as that which was an end in itself and was not a means to anything else. That final end he identified was the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain.
(I will try to explain- I may want to get a job so that I can acquire enough money to buy a car. Thus the job is not an end in itself but a means to something else. So is the car an end in itself? No, it may be the means to go see Mount Rushmore. Is Mt. Rushmore the end? No, someone may look at the faces and learn about a huge swath of American history. The final end or the greatest good would be that which is used as a guide for all actions, right actions. It itself would not be a means to anything else.)
Cicero reminds Torquatus that there is a need to define pleasure.
T. It is obvious. The absence of pain= pleasure. This is silly it is obvious what pleasure is.
C. Let us see then, if that is the case. Is there pleasure for someone who is thirsty to drink?
T. yes.
C. Is the act of drinking while thirsty the same as quenched thirst?
T. No. A thirst which has been satisfied is one that is stabilized (static) condition. Quenching the thirst is a pleasure in motion kinetic).
Cicero's point is that there are two definition of pleasure here and Torquatus never differentiated between the two. He refers to both by the same name.
Cicero points out that Torquatus does the same with absence of pain and pleasure. Cicero does not see how these are the same. T. tells him that he does not understand the meaning of the term, pleasure. Cicero says that is the problem because Epicureans deny the value of definitions they have failed to define just what it is they mean and when someone questions their view they claim that the listener does not understand what is meant. Cicero points out that the language of Epicurus is unlike any other human on the planet. Language is a difficult item as it is but in the case of Epicureans, if Epicureans insist on using a term in a completely different way, then there is the necessity to define that term with great care.
To put it another way Cicero complains that the Epicureans use the word pleasure in their own idiom without ever defining the word and then smirk at anyone who question the ideas.
T. reiterates that the highest form of pleasure is the absence of pain. Then he asks Cicero to cease using dialectic in dealing with Epicureanism.
(This is a silent but major indictment against Epicureanism by Cicero- a true system can stand up under any form of examination. Consequently Epicureanism is not a solid system if it must run from dialectic- i.e. the system Cicero has just employed with these series of questions and answers.)
(As another side it is worthwhile to point out how terrifying it must have been for a witness in the court room to be cross examined by Cicero. In the absence of logic it loses legitimacy.)
Cicero claims that Epicurus' biggest blunder was never defining pleasure. Thus when anyone discusses with an Epicurean the matter under discussion is never made clear. Cicero says that he should have declared two ends- pleasure and the absence of pain. And as Cicero has made clear there a difference between absence of pain and pleasure.
( I have a feeling that there was a stature of Epicurus in the garden as Cicero seems at times to gesture to him and speak to him.)
Cicero quotes Epicurus:
If those things which were productive of pleasures were to free his followers (sensualists) from fear of death and pain and were to teach limits and control of desires, we would have no reason to criticize when from all sides they would be filled with pleasure and would not have no where any pain or grief.
Triarius at this point shows dismay and some disgust. And asks T. if Epicurus really said that. T- of course he did but you do not under HIS meaning.
A sensualist then is not to be blamed as long as they are wise people. Cicero says it is ok to be a parricide as long as all other faults are avoided. In other words what sense can this make?
Cicero asks how can a sensualist can have limited desires. At this point C. uses argument backed by poetry (remember how Epicurus felt about poetry.) Cicero makes the point that someone can dine pleasantly but not necessarily well for pleasure is insatiable and never reaches satiation. Pleasure- live to eat. The opposite is eat to live.
Cicero works it this way: To live well is to live rightly, frugally, honorably. All who dine well dine pleasantly but it not necessarily the case that all who dine pleasantly dine well.
Epicurus says that there are three kinds of desires:
1. Those that are natural and necessary
2. those natural but not necessary
3. those not natural and not necessary.
Kind of a clumsy set- C says that there are only two here- natural and imaginary.
The problem with Epicureanism is that it is geared to moderate vices it does not seek to eradicate.
C- how will a child distinquish between the greatest good and the greatest evil if the pursuit of pleasure is the greatest good. How will a child know what to do when the Epicurean system seeks to moderate vices? When that moderation is based upon the pursuit of pleasure?
C- Epicurus claims that animals are the mirror of humans. The reality is this- active pleasure, not the desire of self preservation motivates. The self preservation of animals is the desire not to experience pain. How is it consistent to say that nature out as a model one form of pleasure but another pleasure to be set as the highest good?
Epicurus takes just one slice of humanity and makes that the greatest good. True there is an aspect of humans which pursues pleasure but is that it? Nothing else? Just the fact that humans possess a form of reason, a level of reason attained by no other animal indicates that there is more to a human than that common characteristic shared with animals. Pleasure can only be a guide for the material world. The pursuit of pleasure ignores the many dimensions of the human intellect.If we examine animals and think of humans it seems odd to think that the pursuit of the absence of pain entails the attainment of the good.
The good life says Cicero is not the avoidance of evil but in the acquisition of good.
(It iis clear that Cicero studied Epicureanism and learned all of their arguments. He studied systems even in later life what he had rejected.
The strength of Epicureanism has been reinforced by the general public. So now we ask and rely upon the man in the street for an assessment of what is the greatest good?
C- points out that if he can show that there is some moral worth valuable in and of itself, the system of Epicureanism collapses. That final end is honestum ( virtue, what is decent and proper, right conduct, truth/justice/courage/restraint) . It is not a means to anything else. It is not pursued for profit. It is distinguished by that trait which deeply separates humans and animals- reason. Reason is what makes the body of the human unconquerable. Reason makes humans want to know the truth. Reason causes humans to love what is trustworthy, consistent- this is justice. Reason causes us to cast out fear- courage. Reason cause humans to balance all three of the above- this is temperance. Honestum encompasses all three.
We can find evidence for these among acts and views of the common people but we can not rely on these as judges because honestum exists whether they are aware of the four virtues or not (justice, truth, courage, temperance).
C- the Epicureans do say that one can not live pleasantly without living honorably. Thus pleasant= honorable? Is public opinion the standard? So without public opinion one can not live pleasantly. Does this put those ignorant in charge of deciding what honestum us is? Yet, there is a saying, a popular one, which goes- one with whom one can plays odds and evens with in the dark….. I.E. with some one who would not cheat even if there is no chance of ever being caught. But if pleasure is the good what sets limits to cheating and lying. If it is justice or temperance, truth or courage then pleasure is not the highest good.
Cicero tells a story from something he witnessed as a young man:
Publius Sextilius Rufus handled the will of Quintus Fadius Gallus. Gallus knew that there was a law which did not allow him to will his entire estate to his daughter. So he named Rufus as heir to his estate but asked him in his will to turn the estate over to his daughter. Rufus denied the arrangement. Rufus claimed he was following the law. Cicero was there and others. Everyone knew that Rufus was lying but Gallus was dead and there was no way to contradict Rufus. Rufus received the great bulk of a valuable estate and the daughter received the minimum set by law. Not of course what dad had intended.
A person who measures right action by right conduct and honor would risk taking risks for honorable morality but someone who measures everything by pleasure would take risks for pleasure.
Remember, Rufus broke no law. Moderation is the obedience of desires to reason. Rufus was obedient to his pursuit of pleasure.
T in his outlay of Epicureanism claimed that his famous ancestors did what they did in light of the pleasure which would follow upon their acts of courage. Now C asks T if that famous Torquatus would derive more pleasure from the way Cicero described him or that of Torquatus here.
The Epicureans placed all pleasure in the body. It was physical, pleasure that is. Consequently upon death all pleasure ceased for upon death, nothing remains. The body is all there was. Cicero wonders why anyone would die nobly when there is no pleasure after death.
Cicero wonders too what good is a philosophy which one can not announce at a public meeting. The only alternative is to lie. Saying one thing but believing another is not consistent.
Neither kinetic pleasure (pleasure in the act of happening) nor static pleasure (pleasure which is complete and in the memory) something anyone would want to declare to a public assembly or for that matter in a court room, or even the Senate.
Epicureans make a big deal of friendship. And Cicero admits that their friendships are famous. But Cicero is analyzing the consistency of Epicureanism not their actions. Love is given in a friendship with no expectation of return. If return does matter, then the friendship ends when the advantage fades. Then C gives numerous examples all derived from studies which Epicurus finds useless: mythology, poetry, history. Cicero admits that Epicurus was a good man but the manner of his life was not consistent with his writings.
Newer Epicureans now say that friendship may begin with the idea that there is an advantage and profit but as time passes it may be continued for its own sake. In other words sometimes it can happen that moral action (honestum) is pursued for its own sake.
(Oops. Epicurus stumbles, again.)
If Epicurus is correct in saying that only by pursuing pleasure can the good life be attained, then no one would ever be happy for the attainment of pleasure is based on matters beyond the control of a wise person. Then too this fading pleasure would cause fear. If happiness is produced by pleasure it is inconsistent to deny that pleasure is increased by duration. (which Epicurus does)
(I can experience toil to get pleasure but that thing, pleasure, may flee before my very eyes. It is ephemeral.)
Happiness does not exist in wisdom but in those things which wisdom provides for pleasure. In other words- happiness depends upon chance.
If pleasure is the measure of the good life, it makes no sense to say that sirloin brings no more pleasure than spam.
Pain can be present at any time, health is not always assured- so again happiness relies only on chance. If pain is the greatest evil, then fear of its possibility must be ever present. And to claim that severe pain is brief is ludicrous (which Epicureanism does).
Again C uses material from those subjects which Epicureanism finds worthless.
Cicero demonstrates that in different situations pleasure can not satisfy human needs. Voluptas is to put it simply ephemeral.
Cicero finishes- when he died his words were noble but inconsistent with his writings. And he oddly provided for a celebration of his birthday which according to his system it was ludicrous to celebrate something which could never come again. For we are born and that day is never seen again according to Epicureanism.
(Another aside- Cicero's knowledge of history surpasses any politician I have ever known.)
No comments:
Post a Comment