On Pleasure and the Examined Life

"[A]s the satisfactions of the body decay, in the same measure my desire for the pleasures of good talk and my delight in them increase. "

- Plato, The Republic, 1.32 [328δ]

In context, this quote is the start of a discourse between Socrates and Cephalus, a wealthy old man of some prominence that defines the conversation of justice in book one of The Republic. One has to wonder who this old man is, and, even further, why it is that, after this definition is made, Cephalus himself, who seeks this conversation, is not heard of within the conversation. However, beyond this note of context, I do not wish to go into further elaboration. This may be saved for another time, and maybe after reading Peter J. Steinberger's political theory piece Who Is Cephalus?, as this question does interest me, and I would like to have a more educated opinion to ponder on before writing more on this. Plus, the question of who Socrates is talking to is not the focus for this writing as much as what is being said in the above written quote.  

 
Though, I will add one interesting bit of trivia about the etymology of the name Cephalus, which has meaning as a type of Mediterranean fish that is also called a mullet. Not to be confused with the hair style, which may or may not have been that of the old man's at the time. Generally, the mullet most often referred to is the gray, or silver mullet, which, if Cephalus is a fictional name, or pseudonym for a real person, may have played on the notion of the man being called Cephalus as being a gray old fish in the pond of life. Being that I myself enjoy a bit of word play in my own writing, I certainly wouldn't deny Plato in his authorship his own bit of word play as well.

Anyways, what is the focus for this addition to the Curriculum has more to do with hedonism. No, this pondering is by no means an advocacy for hedonism, as much as it is considering what is meant by the term, especially in correspondence to how pleasure is understood. It should not in any way be shocking to any credible writer or avid reader of history and philosophy that the ancient Greeks were a rather hedonistic people. There are those that baptize the culture and philosophy of the Greeks, and thus put on the filters of purification on when it comes to the Greeks and the Romans. As a person that can be defined as Roman Catholic because I have joined the Latin rite of the Catholic Church, I can understand this tendency to try to baptize the old philosophers, to whom we like to see as the gentile prototypes of saints. By no means do I mean to say that Plato was not a good man, and that he wasn't seeking after virtue through his love of wisdom. However, it would be unwise, and thus even un-philosophical, to set any philosopher on a pedestal and believe that such a person is merely to be listened to, regurgitated, and spewed out of mouth unthinkingly and without some examination. Plato himself would not want people to go without examining what he said and did, for certainly he learned well from his master Socrates that “The unexamined life is not worth living” (Apology, 38a). By no means was this intended as an example of a good reason for euthanasia – at least not in the terms that we speak of today. Albeit, we live in a time that is of similar hedonistic tendencies as the Greeks of Plato and Socrates' time. But the 'happy death' that Socrates might consider has to be principally understood in the context of which Socrates stated what he did. Therefore, to backtrack on the passage, we shall add to the fuller context this much of the passage:

“[I]f I again say that to talk every day about virtue and the other things about which you hear me talking and examining myself and others is the greatest good to man, and that the unexamined life is not worth living, you will believe me still less. This is as I say, gentlemen, but it is not easy to convince you. Besides, I am not accustomed to think that I deserve anything bad.” (ibid.)

In this part of the Apology, we may consider, then, that what pleasure Socrates may have in his love for wisdom is less about bodily pleasures, or even a devotion to intelligence and book learning, as we may call the studies of the arts and sciences today. Wisdom, therefore, is greater than knowledge and craft, and part of that greatness is linked in some manner to one's ability to examine one's self. But why is this so? What pleasure is there in a life examined? Most of us in the usual sense of the term hedonism seek to maximize pleasure by minimizing pain. What good would there be in making a critical examination of one's life, especially when it can bring about painful memories from the past? For the past few centuries, the liberal theory, even within so-called republics from so-called enlightened, or progressive revolutions, the common view has been established that we are not to reflect on the past, but ever continue to move forward, regardless what mistakes we may make as we fumble our way out of the dark ages of the past, despite a certain blindness that comes while looking into the future. We are to be confident, and not look to our blind sides as we stumble forward and make progress into that unknown future. It would therefore be wrong in this progressive mindset to ask the hard question of “Why?” not only because it's hard, and thus a painful act in and of itself, but also because, in asking the question, it triggers the further pain that comes from actually having to look back and examine one's life, especially in looking upon the mistakes we've made. So, if a life examined is painful, and we are to maximize pleasure, then why in the world would anyone who claims to seek after virtue and wisdom as its own good pleasure say that an unexamined life is not worth living? Not that I can say that I can give the best and most authoritative answer, but this question is perfect to ponder when it comes to reflecting upon the old gray fish Cephalus' statement that was quoted at the beginning of this writing.

Before going more in depth, let's first have a look at the Greek of our principle passage:

ὡς εὖ ἴσθι ὅτι ἔμοιγε ὅσον αἱ ἄλλαι αἱ κατὰ τὸ σῶμα ἡδοναὶ ἀπομαραίνονται, τοσοῦτον αὔξονται αἱ περὶ τοὺς λόγους ἐπιθυμίαι τε καὶ ἡδοναί.

- Plato, The Republic, 1.32 [328δ]

And, for those that are not familiar with the Greek lexicons, here is a transliteration:

hos eu isthi hoti empoige hoson hai alla hai kata to soma hedonai apomarainontai, tosounton auxontai haiperi tous logous epithymiai te kai hedonai.

- Plato, The Republic, 1.32 [328δ]

I'll go ahead and give as literal as possible an interpretation I can, and explain the reason for it after. So, here's the personal interpretation, in as literal a fashion as I can state it:

"[T]hus I would rightly have you know that I, at least in as much as it follows accordingly that, as the body's hedonism withers away and dies, so too in greatness increases thus for these words that are yearned for and taken pleasure in."

- Plato, The Republic, 1.32 [328δ]

As can be seen, to more literally write out the Greek, it takes more words to phrase the meaning. While, as The Judge stated this morning at the men's group meeting, it can be said that Latin is a much more straightforward language than English, it can also be said that Greek is much less straightforward than both. Latin and English are much more to the point, whereas Greek can take a while to unpack, making it necessary to read, re-read, review, and continue to examine to really get the meaning. In some ways, Latin, but most especially English, have become languages that are a matter of processing information, accounting for data and trying to store and document knowledge. Greek is a language of words, a language that desires conversation. Indeed, the Greeks took conversation as a matter of pleasure. We, as well as our Latin predecessors in the West, prefer action over conversation – to shoot first, ask questions later, so to say. However much these tendencies in the language may open or close our engagement with words, and, as follows, our interactions and relationships with people, the “Why?” question that is important here is: Why do we speak at all? Following that question might be: What is the point of speech, or: How do we use speech? Essentially, what is the purpose of words and speaking? Again, I am not giving 'the' answer, but at least presenting the questions for people to explore and converse about themselves. This is not hypothetical per se, as much as provoking the questions for one's own further personal examination of them. A hypothetical would merely be a matter of rhetoric used to win an argument, rather than questions posed to strike up conversation. And, yes, I do understand that, in writing, this conversation can seem rather one-way, since, other than in comments posted, there is not as much back and forth interaction. However, the questions need not be re-stated or posed back to me, as much as be something to reflect on with one's inner dialogue.

To understand how I intend this inner conversation, let us first consider λόγος (logos). Christians in the West have at best a basic understanding of this word as meaning, well, 'word'. While we mystically speak of it in regards to the Divine Logos, or The Word, in both speaking about the Bible as the Word of God, and, further, Jesus Christ our Lord as the Word of God made flesh, we are typically mystified about what really this means. It is interesting to note that logos can be used basically to speak about computation, which may appeal to our computer mindset that tries to process data and information. This serves well for the modern notion that words are mainly used as ways to imprint some sort of idea onto the brain to later recall as needed. Yet, while we may find this sort of idea appealing in this technical age we are in, the metaphor does not hold water to the fact that the brain is not a computer. It is far more complex than even the greatest supercomputer out there, despite that said supercomputer may be able to process data at incredibly fast speeds. But all the computer does is store that data. It does not, in the sense that we do, experience data in any meaningful way that brings forth an interpretation of that data. The computer may give us that data, but we, the person, the human being, has the ability to interpret that data and give it meaning. It's like how a book, or series of books can contain many words, and, thus stores a certain amount of information. However, if a person does not read those books, what would be the point of storing all that information? Likewise, you can have a website like Wikipedia that has people able to write and edit information. But, if no one goes to Wikipedia to read that information, what would be the point of that website? In a darker example, we ought not forget that the vast number of pornographic websites would not be out there if it were not for the fact that people go to them, seeking some sort of promised pleasure that our hedonistic culture claims we ought to seek after, as long as we do no harm to others. And yet, how do we even define what does and does not harm people, save through words, through logos, through finding some sort of common language? For better or, more likely, for worse, those who produce porn have found a certain common language that attracts people in the actions and provocations of sex and lust. In similar manner, too, has the language of violence become the language common in most movies due to this unfortunate commonality of the experiences of violence found in all cultures and walks of life for us humans. But these only speak upon the conditions, assertions, and promises, however true or false, that can be found in logos, and not so much the principle commands or resolutions, or even the matter of responsibility that ought to come with logos. For eventually, after being introduced to language, it follows that we eventually come to a point where we seek a reason or right to our words and why we speak them. When, in logos, it stands to reason, and thus use our faculties of sense and experience we find it in our position to make propositions a need, if not desire to give an account as to why we take the position we do. Even if we do not, by our dissent, we can make the negative consent to an authority absent of reason, which tries to usurp reason with silence, and may suppress others to remain silent in order to avoid accountability for one's words and actions.

As it is, hedonism tends to be, when speaking mostly of the bodily pleasures, something that contrasts with the mental pleasures. This is how it appears to follow, if we only consider, as Cephalus seems to in the principle quote, that the reason old people may enjoy conversation more than a sensual touch is because the body is decaying in power to enjoy those physical pleasures. Even if such an understanding may be so, some of the Baby Boomers that are still fighting to stay young are likely to have a fit over this idea that they are too old for sensual pleasures. For others, living hard young has, through drugs and promiscuity in sex, led to decadence in both body and mind, which hinders the ability to have pleasure even in conversation. For these reasons can one understand, if they are so inclined to give consent to reason, that pleasure without virtue is no pleasure at all. Rather, such pleasure becomes vice, ensnaring a person in a certain addictive state to sensuality, that true caring touch and enjoyment dies, and, conversely, so too does one's faculty to reason properly fade. Without being able to examine one's life, such a person eventually loses life and the true freedoms that come from being able to take one's life story into account.

From a Christian view on this, we can look to the principle of Creation. That is, we look to God and can consider as in the beginning of St. John's gospel:

“All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.”

- John 1:3

The Latin states this as:

Omnia per ipsum facta sunt: et sine ipso factum est nihil, quod factum est.

- John 1:3

What is interesting to consider is the use of facta/factum. We derive the English word 'fact' from this Latin term. To even consider our term and its meaning for 'truth' of a thing, we cannot deny the principle meaning of the Latin in the making of the term and its first cause. There is no way to achieve a fact in opinion, and so we must discern between an actual achievement and a fictional component. We speak of facts as nouns, Latin speaks of it in action. But then, Latin also speaks of logos, or 'word' in terms of action, considering that verbum is the Latin term that we get the English term that defines actions as verbs. Thus, words have little meaning without the actual achievements that the words seek to give an account of. We may be able to give an opinion about an action, but the opinion means less than the actual action. Even if you dislike an action, that opinion about the action does not deny that the action took place. You can deny it took place, but, regardless of yours, or anyone's denial that the action took place, the fact still remains that it did indeed, in actuality, take place.

What pleasure can come from actually admitting that an action took place, especially if that action was a bad one? Why reflect on it? Why examine that part of one's life, especially if it's a painful memory? 

From the point of view of being a Catholic, the account I can give for virtue on this is that confession of bad things does provide for grace and forgiveness, if not from the people you've done wrong to, then at least (and even most importantly) in the eyes of God and His mercy. People are sometimes afraid to go to Confession because they feel they are being judged. That is a common opinion, and thus a fiction that works against a person. This fiction in the opinion leads to people not being able to receive grace, not because God is denying them such, but because the person holding the particular opinion has bound themselves up in that fiction. Yet, if they were to choose to break that bond and enter into Confession, they would be freed and able to enter into God's grace and mercy. 

This pleasure in the joy of realizing the fact that God seeks to forgive you, seeks to give you His grace to abide in, is something that the hedonistic pleasures are unable to do. For the pleasures of hedonism intend to bind and prevent one from being able to open their eyes to true enlightenment, and thus making a proper examination of conscience that can lead to making a good act of contrition. Therefore, a Catholic with this sort of understanding might interpret what Cephalus stated through St. Paul, who himself stated, “I die daily” ( I Cor. 15:31a). 

That is, we know that while God does desire us to have joy, the temporal pleasures sought in hedonism do not lead to that true joy. Following virtue and seeking truth through a vigilant justice is hard, even painful, but yet leads to actual rewards, rather than fictional promises of hedonism that may or may not come to pass. Granted, we may not see the fruits of our achievements in virtuous vigil during while dwelling in these temporal days, but that is because the reward for living out a truly good and Godly life is not temporal, but eternal. Even if we may become an unsung saint who's deeds go unnoticed by the world, they do not go unnoticed to God. Certainly accountability is not merely important to stay out of trouble among men, but because the better we get in examining our lives, the better conversation we can have when we go to meet our maker, when we see God face to face, and have to see ourselves for who we truly are. If we deny ourselves the ability to examine ourselves now, how much harder might that conversation with God be when we meet Him face to face? Much more, how much are we, by denying having the conversation now, denying what grace and goodness may come in starting the conversation with God in this life? Therefore, if you have yet to introduce yourself to God, there is no better time than now to do so. Contrary to how the Greeks saw things, it can be a pleasure to speak with our Father. Indeed, it can be one of the greatest pleasures anyone can ever have, but so many are afraid to have it. Yet Jesus wasn't afraid to introduce us to the Father, and further teach us the Our Father, the Lord's Prayer, as a prayer to begin that conversation with the Father. And through Christ, as both Son of God and Son of Man, we have been given a great opportunity to not just be introduced to our Heavenly Father, but to also ourselves to become sons and daughters of the Father through Christ. When you think about it, there is no greater pleasure anyone can have than to be a part of the family of Christ. But first, you have to be willing to strike up the conversation and then listen to the Divine Logos, and then begin living that examined life in the Lord.