Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T05:40:10.269Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Happiness and virtue in Socrates' moral theory1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2013

Gregory Vlastos
Affiliation:
Department of PhilosophyUniversity of California at Berkeley
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

I Άρετή, εὐδαιμονία: their translation

The key terms in my title pose problems of translation with which I can only deal in the most cursory manner. On ‘virtue’ for ἀρετἡ I need not linger at all, for whatever may be the general usage of ἀρετἡ, Socrates' use of it is fixed beyond doubt by the fact that whenever he brings the general concept under scrutiny – as when he debates its teachability in the Protagoras and the Meno – he assumes without argument that its sole constituents or ‘parts’ (μόρια μέρη) are five qualities which are, incontestably, the Greek terms of moral commendation par excellence: ἀνδρεία, σωφρούνη, δικαιοσύνη, ὁσιότης, σοφία. ‘Happiness’ for εὐδαιμονία is a more contentious matter. Leading Aristotelians, Ross and Ackrill, have claimed that ‘well-being’ would be a better translation. But in their own translations of the E. N. both stick to ‘happiness’ all the same. It is not hard to see why they would and should. ‘Well-being’ has no adjectival or adverbial forms. This may seem a small matter to armchair translators – philosophers dogmatizing on how others should do the job. Not so if one is struggling with its nitty gritty, trying for clause-by-clause English counterparts that might be faithful to the sentence-structure, no less than the sense, of the Greek original. And ‘well-being’ suffers from a further liability: it is a stiff, bookish phrase, bereft of the ease and grace with which the living words of a natural language perform in a wide diversity of contexts. Εὐδαιμονία perfectly fits street-Greek and Aristophanic slapstick, yet also, no less perfectly, the most exalted passages of tragedy.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published online by Cambridge University Press 1984

Footnotes

1

The “Socrates” of this paper is the protagonist of Plato's earlier dialogues. I list these (by self-explanatory abbreviations, borrowed from T. Irwin, Plato's Moral Theory [1974] hereafter ‘PMT): Ap., Ch., Cr., Eud., Eu., G., HMa, HMi, Ion, La., Ly., Pr., R. I. I assume, but shall not argue here, that in this segment of his corpus, Plato aims to recreate the doctrines and arguments of his teacher in dramatic scenes, all of which (except for the Ap.) may be, and most of which undoubtedly are, fictional; I shall be referring to them, under this proviso, as Plato's ‘Socratic dialogues.’ (I did not include the Menexenus in the above list, since the parody of a funeral oration in this dialogue is explicitly dissociated from Socrates.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackrill, J., Aristotle's Ethics (1973).Google Scholar
Ackrill, J., ‘Aristotle on Eudaimonia’, PBA 60 (1974) 339–60.Google Scholar
Arnim, Io. v., Platos Jugenddialogen (1914).Google Scholar
Baynes, N. B., Byzantine Studies (1955).Google Scholar
Blundell, Mary Whitlock, Ethical Problems in Greek Tragedy: Sophocles' Philoctetes (unpublished, 1983).Google Scholar
Burnet, J., Plato's Euthyphro, Apology of Socrates, and Crito (1924). Plato's Phaedo (1911).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, J., ‘The Magna Moralia and Aristotle's Moral Philosophy’, AJP (1973) 327–49. Aristotle on Human Good (1975).Google Scholar
Dodds, E. R., Plato's GORGIAS (1959).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dover, K. J., ‘The Portrayal of Moral Evaluation in Greek Poetry’, JHS (1983) 3548.Google Scholar
Dybikowski, J., ‘Is Aristotelian Eudaimonia Happiness?’ Dialogue (1981) 185200.Google Scholar
Frankena, W., Ethics (1963).Google Scholar
Gosling, J. and Taylor, C. C. W., The Greeks on Pleasure (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grote, G., Plato and the Other Companions of Socrates 1 (1865).Google Scholar
Greenwood, L. H. G., Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics (1909).Google Scholar
Gulley, N., The Philosophy of Socrates (1968).Google Scholar
Hume, D., Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals (1977).Google Scholar
Irwin, T., Plato's Moral Theory 1 (1974). Plato's Gorgias (1979).Google Scholar
Guthrie, W. K. C., History of Greek Philosophy III (1969).Google Scholar
Kraut, R., ‘Two Conceptions of Happiness’, Philos. Review (1979) 167–97.Google Scholar
Maier, H., Sokrates (1913).Google Scholar
Méridier, L., translation of the Euthydemus in Platon: Oeuvres Complètes, V.I (1956).Google Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha, ‘Consequences and Character in Sophocles' Philoctetes’, Philos. and Literature (19761977) 2553.Google Scholar
Prichard, H. A., Duty and Interest (1928). Moral Obligation (1949).Google Scholar
Riddell, J., The APOLOGY of Plato, with Digest of Platonic Idioms (1867).Google Scholar
Robin, L., Platon: Oeuvres Complètes I (1956).Google Scholar
Ross, W. D., Aristotle 1 (1923).Google Scholar
Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics (trans.) in Ross, W. D. and Smith, J. A., The Works of Aristotle translated into English (19101952).Google Scholar
Santas, G., Socrates (1979).Google Scholar
Sidgwick, H., Methods of Ethics 7 (1907).Google Scholar
Stewart, J. A., Notes on the Nicomachean Ethics (1892).Google Scholar
Taylor, A. E., Plato, the Man and his Work 6 (1949).Google Scholar
Vlastos, G., ‘Socrates' Contribution to the Greek Sense of Justice’, Άρχαιογνωσία 1 (1980) 301–24.Google Scholar
Vlastos, G., ‘Socrates on acrasia’, Phoenix (1969) 7188.Google Scholar
Vlastos, G., Review of Irwin, T., Plato's Moral Theory in Times Literary Supplement (1978) 230–31.Google Scholar
Vlastos, G., Platonic Studies 2 (1981).Google Scholar
Zeller, E., Sokrates und die Sokratiker (1922).Google Scholar
Zeyl, D., ‘Socrates and Hedonism - Pr. 351b-358d’ Phronesis (1980) 250–69.Google Scholar
Zeyl, D., ‘Socratic Virtue and Happiness’, Arch, für Gesch. der Philos. 64 (1982) 225–38.Google Scholar