Graduate 183: Tusculan Disputations
I just finished spending an absolutely wonderful day with a bunch of philosophers here at UCR on the last day of finals week. Who would have thought? On the last day of finals week, I expect, most people who are actually still around are only thinking about how much longer they have to wait until they can actually leave. But I got to sit in on a meeting of the Southern California Phenomenology Circle and listen to a series of paper presentations. The first was on Husserl's concept of hyletic data, the second on Heidegger's treatment of technology and enframing, and the third on Husserl ideas about we-subjectivity. If that doesn't mean a lot to you, that's fine. Part of what's exciting to me is just the fact that they all did mean something to me. Oh, the joys of being a philosophy graduate student.
About an hour from now a couple friends are taking me out for a birthday dinner.
And I'm looking forward to the weekend and to the upcoming Christmas break.
I do have forty essay exams sitting on my computer now that will need to be graded. I guess I'll attend to that in due time.
Oh, and one more piece of good news: I passed my Latin language proficiency exam this week.
--
As part of my doctoral program, I have to satisfy a language proficiency requirement. The exam involved translating three pages of Cicero.
I definitely did not pass with flying colors, but I did pass.
Just for the fun of it (i.e. because I'm a nerd that way), I decided to copy a short passage (one of the stronger ones) from my translation so that people could see the comparison between it and other established translations.
--
Marcus Tullius Cicero
Tusculan Disputations, II, xii.
Sed quid poetis irascimur? Virtutis magistri, philosophi, [1] inventi sunt qui summum malum dolorem dicerent. At tu, adolescens, cum id tibi paullo ante dixisses videri, rogatus a me etiamne maius quam dedecus, verbo de sententia destitisti. [2] Roga hoc idem Epicurum: maius dicet esse malum mediocrem dolorem quam maximum dedecus; in ipso enim dedecore mali nihil esse, nisi sequantur dolores. Quis igitur Epicurum sequitur dolor, cum hoc ipsum dicit, summum malum esse dolorem? quo dedecus maius a philosopho nullum exspecto. [3] Qua re satis mihi dedisti, cum respondisti maius tibi videri malum dedecus quam dolorem. Hoc ipsum enim si tenebis, intelliges quam sit obsistendum dolori; nec tam quaerendum est dolor malumne sit quam firmandus animus ad dolorem ferendum.
Translated by Luis Montes.
But why do we grow angry with the poets? Teachers of virtue, and philosophers, [1] were found who say that the greatest evil is pain. But you, young man, although you would have said a little earlier that this seems right to you, having been asked by me whether pain is even more evil than dishonor, you gave up the proverb that came from that way of thinking. [2] Ask Epicurus about this same thing: he will say that moderate pain is more evil than the greatest dishonor; for in dishonor itself there is nothing evil, unless pain follows it. What pain, then, follows Epicurus, when he says this very thing, that the greatest evil is pain? On account of which I expect no dishonor greater from a philosopher. [3] By which thing you gave me enough, when you answered that dishonor seems to you to be more evil than pain. For if you will hold this very thing, you will understand how one should be opposed to pain; and one is not so much to inquire about whether pain is an evil as the spirit is to be strengthened for the bearing of pain.
Translated by J. E. King. 1927.
But why are we angry with the poets? Philosophers, the teachers of virtue, [1] have been found ready to say that pain was the highest evil. But you, young man, after saying a little while ago that you shared this view, when asked by me whether you thought that it was a greater evil even than disgrace, at a word abandoned your opinion. [2] Put the same question to Epicurus: he will say that a moderate degree of pain is worse evil than the deepest disgrace, for no evil is involved in disgrace alone, unless it should be attended by painful circumstances. What pain then does Epicurus feel when he actually affirms that pain is the greatest evil? And yet I cannot look to find any worse disgrace than such a sentiment in the mouth of a philosopher. [3] You therefore gave me all I wanted when you replied that you regarded disgrace as a greater evil than pain. For if you hold fast simply to this truth you will realize the resistance which must be offered to pain, and we must not endeavour so much to ask whether pain be an evil as to strengthen the soul for the endurance of pain."
Translated by C. D. Yonge. 1888.
But why are we angry with the poets? We may find some philosophers, those masters of virtue, [1] who have taught that pain was the greatest of evils. But you, young man, when you said but just now that it appeared so to you, upon being asked by me what appeared greater than infamy, gave up that opinion at a word. [2] Suppose I ask Epicurus the same question. He will answer that a trifling degree of pain is a greater evil than the greatest infamy; for that there is no evil in infamy itself, unless attended with pain. What pain, then, attends Epicurus, when he says that very thing, that pain is the greatest evil! And yet nothing can be a greater disgrace to a philosopher than to talk thus. [3] Therefore, you allowed enough when you admitted that infamy appeared to you to be a greater evil than pain. And if you abide by this admission you will see how far pain should be resisted; and that our inquiry should be not so much whether pain be an evil, as how the mind may be fortified for resisting it.
[1] I definitely goofed on this one. I should have realized that "teachers of virtue" and "philosophers" refer to the same group of people. Also, there's no conjunction ("and") in that opening line.
[2] King and Yonge translated "verbo" (ablative) as "at a word." I'm not sure whether my studies prepared me for that, but I can see how it might work.
[3] I can sort of see how they translated this line, but it is definitely far from obvious. "quo dedecus maius a philosopho nullum exspecto." There are no words corresponding to the expressions, "cannot look" or "such a sentiment in the mouth of" [King's translation] in the Latin. One could only get the full construal from a clear understanding of the context and discussion. That's basically what it takes to do well at translating any language.
So I'll keep working on Latin. Next term I'm also going to start working on learning German. Woo!
--
God is in this place,
And that reality, seen and understood by the grace of God in Christ Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit, makes all the difference in the world.
About an hour from now a couple friends are taking me out for a birthday dinner.
And I'm looking forward to the weekend and to the upcoming Christmas break.
I do have forty essay exams sitting on my computer now that will need to be graded. I guess I'll attend to that in due time.
Oh, and one more piece of good news: I passed my Latin language proficiency exam this week.
--
As part of my doctoral program, I have to satisfy a language proficiency requirement. The exam involved translating three pages of Cicero.
I definitely did not pass with flying colors, but I did pass.
Just for the fun of it (i.e. because I'm a nerd that way), I decided to copy a short passage (one of the stronger ones) from my translation so that people could see the comparison between it and other established translations.
--
Marcus Tullius Cicero
Tusculan Disputations, II, xii.
Sed quid poetis irascimur? Virtutis magistri, philosophi, [1] inventi sunt qui summum malum dolorem dicerent. At tu, adolescens, cum id tibi paullo ante dixisses videri, rogatus a me etiamne maius quam dedecus, verbo de sententia destitisti. [2] Roga hoc idem Epicurum: maius dicet esse malum mediocrem dolorem quam maximum dedecus; in ipso enim dedecore mali nihil esse, nisi sequantur dolores. Quis igitur Epicurum sequitur dolor, cum hoc ipsum dicit, summum malum esse dolorem? quo dedecus maius a philosopho nullum exspecto. [3] Qua re satis mihi dedisti, cum respondisti maius tibi videri malum dedecus quam dolorem. Hoc ipsum enim si tenebis, intelliges quam sit obsistendum dolori; nec tam quaerendum est dolor malumne sit quam firmandus animus ad dolorem ferendum.
Translated by Luis Montes.
But why do we grow angry with the poets? Teachers of virtue, and philosophers, [1] were found who say that the greatest evil is pain. But you, young man, although you would have said a little earlier that this seems right to you, having been asked by me whether pain is even more evil than dishonor, you gave up the proverb that came from that way of thinking. [2] Ask Epicurus about this same thing: he will say that moderate pain is more evil than the greatest dishonor; for in dishonor itself there is nothing evil, unless pain follows it. What pain, then, follows Epicurus, when he says this very thing, that the greatest evil is pain? On account of which I expect no dishonor greater from a philosopher. [3] By which thing you gave me enough, when you answered that dishonor seems to you to be more evil than pain. For if you will hold this very thing, you will understand how one should be opposed to pain; and one is not so much to inquire about whether pain is an evil as the spirit is to be strengthened for the bearing of pain.
Translated by J. E. King. 1927.
But why are we angry with the poets? Philosophers, the teachers of virtue, [1] have been found ready to say that pain was the highest evil. But you, young man, after saying a little while ago that you shared this view, when asked by me whether you thought that it was a greater evil even than disgrace, at a word abandoned your opinion. [2] Put the same question to Epicurus: he will say that a moderate degree of pain is worse evil than the deepest disgrace, for no evil is involved in disgrace alone, unless it should be attended by painful circumstances. What pain then does Epicurus feel when he actually affirms that pain is the greatest evil? And yet I cannot look to find any worse disgrace than such a sentiment in the mouth of a philosopher. [3] You therefore gave me all I wanted when you replied that you regarded disgrace as a greater evil than pain. For if you hold fast simply to this truth you will realize the resistance which must be offered to pain, and we must not endeavour so much to ask whether pain be an evil as to strengthen the soul for the endurance of pain."
Translated by C. D. Yonge. 1888.
But why are we angry with the poets? We may find some philosophers, those masters of virtue, [1] who have taught that pain was the greatest of evils. But you, young man, when you said but just now that it appeared so to you, upon being asked by me what appeared greater than infamy, gave up that opinion at a word. [2] Suppose I ask Epicurus the same question. He will answer that a trifling degree of pain is a greater evil than the greatest infamy; for that there is no evil in infamy itself, unless attended with pain. What pain, then, attends Epicurus, when he says that very thing, that pain is the greatest evil! And yet nothing can be a greater disgrace to a philosopher than to talk thus. [3] Therefore, you allowed enough when you admitted that infamy appeared to you to be a greater evil than pain. And if you abide by this admission you will see how far pain should be resisted; and that our inquiry should be not so much whether pain be an evil, as how the mind may be fortified for resisting it.
[1] I definitely goofed on this one. I should have realized that "teachers of virtue" and "philosophers" refer to the same group of people. Also, there's no conjunction ("and") in that opening line.
[2] King and Yonge translated "verbo" (ablative) as "at a word." I'm not sure whether my studies prepared me for that, but I can see how it might work.
[3] I can sort of see how they translated this line, but it is definitely far from obvious. "quo dedecus maius a philosopho nullum exspecto." There are no words corresponding to the expressions, "cannot look" or "such a sentiment in the mouth of" [King's translation] in the Latin. One could only get the full construal from a clear understanding of the context and discussion. That's basically what it takes to do well at translating any language.
So I'll keep working on Latin. Next term I'm also going to start working on learning German. Woo!
--
God is in this place,
And that reality, seen and understood by the grace of God in Christ Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit, makes all the difference in the world.
posted by Metaphysician_delta | 5:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home