M. I forbear to mention riches, which, as anyone, let him be ever so unworthy, may have them, I do not reckon among goods; for what is good is not attainable by all. I pass over notoriety and popular fame, raised by the united voice of knaves and fools.
Even things which are absolute nothings may be called goods; such as white teeth, handsome eyes, a good complexion, and what was commended by Euryclea, when she was washing Ulysses’s feet, the softness of his skin and the mildness of his discourse.
If you look on these as goods, what greater encomiums can the gravity of a philosopher be entitled to than the wild opinion of the vulgar and the thoughtless crowd? The Stoics give the name of excellent and choice to what the others call good: they call them so, indeed; but they do not allow them to complete a happy life. But these others think that there is no life happy without them; or, admitting it to be happy, they deny it to be the most happy.
But our opinion is, that it is the most happy; and we prove it from that conclusion of Socrates. For thus that author of philosophy argued: that as the disposition of a man’s mind is, so is the man; such as the man is, such will be his discourse; his actions will correspond with his discourse, and his life with his actions.
But the disposition of a good man’s mind is laudable; the life, therefore, of a good man is laudable; it is honorable, therefore, because it is laudable; the unavoidable conclusion from which is that the life of good men is happy.
For, good Gods! Did I not make it appear, by my former arguments—or was I only amusing myself and killing time in what I then said?—that the mind of a wise man was always free from every hasty motion which I call a perturbation, and that the most undisturbed peace always reigned in his breast?
A man, then, who is temperate and consistent, free from fear or grief, and uninfluenced by any immoderate joy or desire, cannot be otherwise than happy; but a wise man is always so, therefore he is always happy.
Moreover, how can a good man avoid referring all his actions and all his feelings to the one standard of whether or not it is laudable? But he does refer everything to the object of living happily: it follows, then, that a happy life is laudable; but nothing is laudable without virtue: a happy life, then, is the consequence of virtue. And this is the unavoidable conclusion to be drawn from these arguments.
Even things which are absolute nothings may be called goods; such as white teeth, handsome eyes, a good complexion, and what was commended by Euryclea, when she was washing Ulysses’s feet, the softness of his skin and the mildness of his discourse.
If you look on these as goods, what greater encomiums can the gravity of a philosopher be entitled to than the wild opinion of the vulgar and the thoughtless crowd? The Stoics give the name of excellent and choice to what the others call good: they call them so, indeed; but they do not allow them to complete a happy life. But these others think that there is no life happy without them; or, admitting it to be happy, they deny it to be the most happy.
But our opinion is, that it is the most happy; and we prove it from that conclusion of Socrates. For thus that author of philosophy argued: that as the disposition of a man’s mind is, so is the man; such as the man is, such will be his discourse; his actions will correspond with his discourse, and his life with his actions.
But the disposition of a good man’s mind is laudable; the life, therefore, of a good man is laudable; it is honorable, therefore, because it is laudable; the unavoidable conclusion from which is that the life of good men is happy.
For, good Gods! Did I not make it appear, by my former arguments—or was I only amusing myself and killing time in what I then said?—that the mind of a wise man was always free from every hasty motion which I call a perturbation, and that the most undisturbed peace always reigned in his breast?
A man, then, who is temperate and consistent, free from fear or grief, and uninfluenced by any immoderate joy or desire, cannot be otherwise than happy; but a wise man is always so, therefore he is always happy.
Moreover, how can a good man avoid referring all his actions and all his feelings to the one standard of whether or not it is laudable? But he does refer everything to the object of living happily: it follows, then, that a happy life is laudable; but nothing is laudable without virtue: a happy life, then, is the consequence of virtue. And this is the unavoidable conclusion to be drawn from these arguments.
—from Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 5.16
We do ourselves no favors with a “shotgun” approach to the good, pursuing countless accidents at the expense of the single essence. What at first appears to be generous and inclusive turns out to be muddled and lazy, where the jack of all trades finds himself to be the master of none, and a reliance upon everything except our own virtues leaves us frazzled and adrift.
I do not wish to deny how birds or dogs have their particular goodness, only to clarify why a man is not defined by how far he can fly or how fast he can run. That gold will glitter is a fine feature for a metal, though hoarding bars of it in a vault will bring absolutely no benefit to the state of my soul. The tree will fall in the woods, whether anyone hears it or not, just as my happiness will follow from my character, whether I live in a palace or in a shack.
I do hear people insisting that money, fame, or looks aren’t so terribly important, yet I fear they are merely mouthing the words, because their deeds reveal how they think otherwise. An old Jesuit once put me in my place by asking me to consider spending as much time forming my conscience as I did worrying about my image, and his advice continues to knock some sense into me every day.
With the Stoics, could I choose to prefer one circumstance over another? Certainly, but only if I do not think it will somehow upgrade my happiness, and if I approach either its presence or its absence by the measure of my nature. As much as I enjoy playing my music, or smoking my pipe, or wearing silly hats, I understand why they do not complete me, and I would be glad to dispose of them if they became occasions for vice.
So you must forgive me when I am suspicious of the fellow who says he would be miserable without his fancy car, or even if he lost his rewarding job, for he perceives them as absolute ends, rather than as relative means. As much as I wish him the greatest joy, I would encourage him to expect more for himself by digging a little deeper, to have more reverence for what is truly within him than for what happens to be around him.
I recently had to control my temper when the charismatic founder of a rising tech company told an audience of eager college students how he was “doing the work of Socrates” by “breaking all the rules about running a business”. While I am sure Socrates would never begrudge a man the pleasures of his trade, I am also sure he would never confuse selling a product with improving the soul.
Our actions will be worthy when they conform to a sound awareness of right and wrong, the only sort of integrity that matters. With that kind of honor to our names, the very fulfillment of our humanity, why would we continue to fret over the balance sheets or the pecking order? If the excellence of understanding and of love are not enough for the happiness of the rational animal, what else could possibly take its place?
It is, of course, easier to nod our heads to the theory than to take a plunge into the practice, since we remain attached to hasty assumptions, and the old habits die hard. Carefully observe the qualities people will regularly praise, and you then have a peephole into their priorities. You will learn if their notion of honor proceeds from the inside out or from the outside in.
Though Euryclea may have eventually recognized Odysseus by the scar on his leg, she remained loyal to him out of a respect for the dignity within the man.
We do ourselves no favors with a “shotgun” approach to the good, pursuing countless accidents at the expense of the single essence. What at first appears to be generous and inclusive turns out to be muddled and lazy, where the jack of all trades finds himself to be the master of none, and a reliance upon everything except our own virtues leaves us frazzled and adrift.
I do not wish to deny how birds or dogs have their particular goodness, only to clarify why a man is not defined by how far he can fly or how fast he can run. That gold will glitter is a fine feature for a metal, though hoarding bars of it in a vault will bring absolutely no benefit to the state of my soul. The tree will fall in the woods, whether anyone hears it or not, just as my happiness will follow from my character, whether I live in a palace or in a shack.
I do hear people insisting that money, fame, or looks aren’t so terribly important, yet I fear they are merely mouthing the words, because their deeds reveal how they think otherwise. An old Jesuit once put me in my place by asking me to consider spending as much time forming my conscience as I did worrying about my image, and his advice continues to knock some sense into me every day.
With the Stoics, could I choose to prefer one circumstance over another? Certainly, but only if I do not think it will somehow upgrade my happiness, and if I approach either its presence or its absence by the measure of my nature. As much as I enjoy playing my music, or smoking my pipe, or wearing silly hats, I understand why they do not complete me, and I would be glad to dispose of them if they became occasions for vice.
So you must forgive me when I am suspicious of the fellow who says he would be miserable without his fancy car, or even if he lost his rewarding job, for he perceives them as absolute ends, rather than as relative means. As much as I wish him the greatest joy, I would encourage him to expect more for himself by digging a little deeper, to have more reverence for what is truly within him than for what happens to be around him.
I recently had to control my temper when the charismatic founder of a rising tech company told an audience of eager college students how he was “doing the work of Socrates” by “breaking all the rules about running a business”. While I am sure Socrates would never begrudge a man the pleasures of his trade, I am also sure he would never confuse selling a product with improving the soul.
Our actions will be worthy when they conform to a sound awareness of right and wrong, the only sort of integrity that matters. With that kind of honor to our names, the very fulfillment of our humanity, why would we continue to fret over the balance sheets or the pecking order? If the excellence of understanding and of love are not enough for the happiness of the rational animal, what else could possibly take its place?
It is, of course, easier to nod our heads to the theory than to take a plunge into the practice, since we remain attached to hasty assumptions, and the old habits die hard. Carefully observe the qualities people will regularly praise, and you then have a peephole into their priorities. You will learn if their notion of honor proceeds from the inside out or from the outside in.
Though Euryclea may have eventually recognized Odysseus by the scar on his leg, she remained loyal to him out of a respect for the dignity within the man.
—Reflection written in 2/1999
IMAGE: Gustave Boulanger, Odysseus Recognized by Euryclea (1849)
No comments:
Post a Comment