Simone Biles and the Appeal to “Mental Health”
I begin this thread in response to the backlash I received from several other members of TPF when, in the Short Story Discussion thread, I criticized Simone Biles for withdrawing from the gymnastics events in which she was scheduled to compete, in the Tokyo Olympics. This backlash was swift and furious, profanity-laced, and put the highest degree of moral indignation at my remarks on display. How could I be so insensitive? How so racist in my views? etc. For I said I had perceived a pattern in the withdrawal of Biles and Naomi Osaka, women of color as I noted, from their highest competitions, both citing “mental health issues” as the reason, and I called it a “cop-out”.
After a bit of internet research, I was reminded that a movement in the media and society to bring awareness to the plight of athletes suffering from mental health issues has been taking place for a few years now, and the focus has not been confined to minority athletes (women, or ones of color): Michael Phelps and Kevin Love have been forthcoming with their struggles. But the focus tends to be on ones belonging to minorities, or oppressed groups, and the reason for this is because these ppl are perceived to be preternaturally disadvantaged: their start in the race is staggered, or they are teeing off from the back tees, or they are playing with a “handicap”, etc., and this disadvantage places greater stress on their mental health...
...that consideration is the only reason I tied women of color to this movement; for I do not, as someone accused me of, believe that black athletes are inferior to white ones.
The consensus in the media and society at large is that Simone was courageous to do what she did... and this causes one to consider what courage is. In the vulgar traditional sense, it is simply the overcoming of fear. In the Classical philosophic tradition, it is knowing what ought and ought not be feared. In Simone’s case, what did she fear?
That is a question I think we can never answer. Did she fear catastrophic injury resulting from a landing that could not be at all predicted after many convoluted twists in mid-air? Gymnasts have broken their necks and died from such accidents... but none of them was a great champion, and bull-riders and matadors, some of them great champions, have been gored and trampled in their quests for glory.
Did she fear she would fail to dominate and win many golds? Did she fear she would fail to cement her name as the greatest female gymnast of all time in the record, or as the greatest gymnast period? Or as the greatest male or female athlete in any sport? Those expectations are the heaviest an athlete could bear, yet great champions have shouldered them in the past.
We know, however, that she feared something strongly enough to forego competition that is rare and confers the greatest honors on its victors. To shun such an opportunity in the past was considered cowardice. Now however, for the athlete aspiring to honors that appear to him to be too burdensome, there is a way out: drop out and confess the unbearable stress; appeal to a popular movement that wants to equalize all human beings as vulnerable; jump on the mental health bandwagon and be assured of support from all those who most influence popular opinion.
In fine, courage used to be overcoming fear. Now it is succumbing to it.
After a bit of internet research, I was reminded that a movement in the media and society to bring awareness to the plight of athletes suffering from mental health issues has been taking place for a few years now, and the focus has not been confined to minority athletes (women, or ones of color): Michael Phelps and Kevin Love have been forthcoming with their struggles. But the focus tends to be on ones belonging to minorities, or oppressed groups, and the reason for this is because these ppl are perceived to be preternaturally disadvantaged: their start in the race is staggered, or they are teeing off from the back tees, or they are playing with a “handicap”, etc., and this disadvantage places greater stress on their mental health...
...that consideration is the only reason I tied women of color to this movement; for I do not, as someone accused me of, believe that black athletes are inferior to white ones.
The consensus in the media and society at large is that Simone was courageous to do what she did... and this causes one to consider what courage is. In the vulgar traditional sense, it is simply the overcoming of fear. In the Classical philosophic tradition, it is knowing what ought and ought not be feared. In Simone’s case, what did she fear?
That is a question I think we can never answer. Did she fear catastrophic injury resulting from a landing that could not be at all predicted after many convoluted twists in mid-air? Gymnasts have broken their necks and died from such accidents... but none of them was a great champion, and bull-riders and matadors, some of them great champions, have been gored and trampled in their quests for glory.
Did she fear she would fail to dominate and win many golds? Did she fear she would fail to cement her name as the greatest female gymnast of all time in the record, or as the greatest gymnast period? Or as the greatest male or female athlete in any sport? Those expectations are the heaviest an athlete could bear, yet great champions have shouldered them in the past.
We know, however, that she feared something strongly enough to forego competition that is rare and confers the greatest honors on its victors. To shun such an opportunity in the past was considered cowardice. Now however, for the athlete aspiring to honors that appear to him to be too burdensome, there is a way out: drop out and confess the unbearable stress; appeal to a popular movement that wants to equalize all human beings as vulnerable; jump on the mental health bandwagon and be assured of support from all those who most influence popular opinion.
In fine, courage used to be overcoming fear. Now it is succumbing to it.
Comments (102)
I haven’t been following the Olympics this year, or this story, but I would guess there’s fear in the consequences of withdrawing from events, like losing sponsors and the risk of generally damaging her career. I’m inclined to sympathize, personally.
So because she feared withdrawing, she withdrew?
And therefore Simone is courageous, because she overcame the fear of the undesirable consequences of withdrawing from competition. Is that what you are saying?
I don’t know if I’d say “overcame” but yes. She’s a national hero so I’d expect the press be sympathetic and supportive.
Mental health issues can keep you awake for days, interfere with your thought patterns, disorient you, etc. Its brave just to live with the stress let alone compete at a world class level when you have been pushed so far below your capacity for peak performance. And we all know mental health symptoms have nothing to do with weakness of character: all kinds of people can suddenly or gradually trip out because of that stuff.
She chose to be the show pony. I enjoyed the show... until there was none.
And you chose to write 7 paragraphs about it.
"Racist" is a modern day catch-all word used against anyone that is against the snowflake socialism mentality.
Only thing you can do nowadays is to play the victim like everyone else. Otherwise you will be lynched as a "racist".
In this case however, the other plans and expectations aligned perfectly with a popular movement that supports anyone who cites mental health issues as the reason for not competing.
I think mental health should take precedence over other things, so what's up?
I felt the need to respond to an outcry from members of this forum that I am racist and insensitive.
Although holy shit your entitlement fucking reeks. And it's most certainly a vast and snowflaky oversensitivity, and certainly not an insensitiviry.
It's so much more complicated than running around a track or swimming in a pool.
Are they correct in being supportive of an amazing athlete? Of course.
Yes, Mr. Contemporary Avenue Illuminator: I am so entitled: I have no job, no money, am horrendously ugly, no status, no position, no prospect of furtherance in the affairs of man. Hey, I guess that’s why I’m in the Philosophy Forum!
Ah, no wonder you feel the need to whine extensively about someone not performing tricks for your entertainment. You've little else.
Back in the good old days we used to whine about good stuff. Now we're overly sensitive, easily triggered snowflakes who get mad because some young woman who means nothing to me and who I will forget about in a week didn't do the flippy zippy do dah.
NOTHING else, to tell you the truth. Thanks for your sympathy and perspicuity.
No worries. I'm glad your demands and claims over other people's highly trained performing bodies gets your fragile, armchair rocks off.
...I don’t know how Jack does it...This is is the first thread I’ve started in months!
No one's giving gold medals to anyone for not trying, but we all gotta be respected enough to live at the very least, even when expectations have to change, unless you want dystopia, which is pretty much where we're at actually.
Never helps.
Quoting Leghorn
Agree. I'm reminded of the blitz, when Hitler's Luftwaffe bombed London every night for eight months from 1940-41. If it happened today, the Brits would have surrendered to Germany "to prioritize their mental health." What they did instead was show incredible courage, huddling in the underground subway stations and stiffening their spines, till Hitler gave up and went off to attack Russia. In retrospect it was the bravery of those Londoners who turned the course of the war.
So, to clarify, mental illness is real, it interferes in all forms of employment, from candlestick maker to gymnast, and your position, if it's truly not racist and not dismissive of mental health issues, needs to be restated because you do come off very poorly in this thread
Audiences used to expect Olympians to act as John Wayne-type superheroes. Now they like their superheroes (like Batman and Spider-man) to be depicted as angst and doubt ridden vulnerable
mortals. It makes for a different kind of drama. If its working for cinema , maybe it will work for the Olympics.
We all know why the old, the isolated, and the uneducated hold to the views of the past, but there's good reason those views have been swept to the dustbin. I'm willing to hear from the sociologists who discuss our social evolution, but less so to hear directly from the mouths of our dinosaurs who don't realize time passed them by.
You’d better be careful. Before you know it, you may find yourself being treated as the next dinosaur whom time has passed by. Foucault would have a field day providing a genealogical analysis both of the ‘reasons’ behind the change in values at the Olympics and your moralistic outrage ar those who dont follow the new orthodoxy . It sounds like you’ve latched onto the emancipatory version of critical theory but haven’t yet made your way into thoroughgoing postmodern territory
The strong can wipe out the weak anytime they want to, and it will just make them stronger. This is the law of the universe, which supersedes all human laws.
A strong person does not need to respect a weak person. It's the weak person that should be respecting the strong person. But nowadays the weak are all hoarding together and trying to take out the strong. Which is stupid because it wont work, it will just make them weaker.
How do you define strong vs. weak? Any institution can be dismantled by an angry hoard at any time, so strength isn't wealth or any tangible quality. Seems to me that strength on human terms is the ability to self-organize into collectives, so there is no such thing as a strong or weak individual. "Strong" is just a bigger mob.
Strong (on a fundamental level) is any pattern that can destroy / consume any other pattern.
Yes the strongest force in a country is the united citizens in that country. Which is the foundation for freedom and rights. Because if you don't give those that strongest force will just come and take them.
Abstract models often seem like 'babble' to people who prefer a more direct and practical approach.
Reasonable abstract models would be welcome. Comparing Simone's "twisty" problem with the Blitz in England during WWII? (I suspect this was satire). And "mental health" doesn't mean she needs psychiatric treatment - it's a specific glitch in a dangerous and very complicated performance.
This is not John Wayne territory.
In America you get lynched whether you are a racist, or a race.
I think Simone gets positive reviews because fighting mental illness, breast cancer, and childhood altarboy syndrome is "in". Fifty years ago or more, mental disease was swept under the carpet. But we created equal access, and that I applaud, along with trying to eradicate the stigma of mental unhealth. This is in line with the efforts of getting races into professions, and women into male professions. This is all good, because I am a leftist. There was some flack in the eighties, like stories circulating how much of idiots the minority professionals were, but these stories were highly of anecdotal nature, no statistics existed on showing the "inferiority" of black electricians or the superiority of Asian porn stars.
So... this is a trend now, much like lynching black people was a trend in the twenties. I like this present trend, but don't be fooled by it: come a turn in the economy, and people will point a scapegoat faster than you can say "meh-eh-eh-eh-eh". Trends are now predictable, we have enough statistics piled up on that. Some of us like a given trend, some of us hate a given trend.
Coming back to Simone: he or she (I follow sports so little I don't even know his or her gender, race, or citizenship) is mentally ill. She is a darling because she dared to quit; she would be a darling if she continued and she did not quit. She could make no mistake, she would be a darling if she won, lost, quit, or committed suicide. Her fame is not established on quitting. Her fame is established on her mental disease, and that's that. Everything else she does is only a footnote to her mental disease and to her courage to quit, to continue, to win, to lose, to laugh, to cry, to live, to love.
People claim to accept mental illness but then if a guy talks to a girl in the wrong way everyone calls him a creep. So much for accepting mental illness. We seem to have zero acceptance of stupidity or of evil, and often blame mental illness on those things so we can attack it without feeling guilty. Judgmentalism is stronger then acceptance I guess.
It's not possible to accept mental illness when we falsely believe everything is magically fabricated by our free-will. That's a recipe for blame and narcissism.
I more-or-less agree, except that if someone is described that he did something wrong (morally or socially) because of mental disease, we tend to forgive him or her. If someone does something evil without the stigmatizing forgiveness that comes along with mental disease, then we are harsher on the perpetrator.
At least this is the case in my microcosmos of social milieu.
We are so strong as athletes, that we can lift the very armchair we sit on.
Wtf does this even mean?
Batshit crazy is the best I can come up with.
I kindly object to your position.
The strong are absolutely charged with respecting and caring for the weak.
It is what the strong does. The measure of a society is based upon how we treat the weakest among us.
Those who much was given, much is expected.
I could go on with platitudes but I think I have made my point.
Because some mental problems are fixed with a good kick in the ass.
Problem is we are not good at discerning the difference. Or we don't often want to.
Sure but they don't have to. The weak better have something good to offer, because if they don't then the strong might just find it better to remove them then help them.
Quoting god must be atheist
When I get up from a chair too quickly I experience a moment of wooziness. I suppose I am mentally ill. Or maybe I have a mental disease.
How sad. Lacked the courage to do so, perhaps?
But come. Why do you believe that a very accomplished gymnast, who has won many medals already, should have participated and attempted to win more? Is a certain number of medals required in order to show courage enough to satisfy you?
Is it the fact that she complained of mental problems that annoys you? What about physical problems? If she had twisted her ankle would you maintain her failure to compete showed a lack of courage? Would it have been less an indication of a lack of courage if she had said she'd won enough already? What more was she required to do in order to win your respect?
The idea that people should put their lives, physical or mental health or well being on the line in order to engage successfully in athletics is a curious one. I've never thought wars were won on the fabled Playing Fields of Eton, nor was I an avid reader of Tom Brown's School Days; perhaps you do or were. Nobody ever died for dear old Rutgers, as the song goes, and for good reason. There are other things to be courageous about that are far more significant, and I doubt that the example of this young woman will cause the downfall of Western civilization or render us weaklings.
Take courage, poor Leghorn.
The assumption here is that the soul is no more complicated than a machine, and therefore psychotherapy as simple as putting in a new transmission.
Quoting tim wood
So now suddenly she needs no psychologist, because she is the expert on herself! My impression of Ms. Biles, after listening to several excerpts from her pressers, is that she is a rather simple soul of ordinary intellect, not the deep study Freud would want to be lying on his couch.
Quoting Hanover
Not anymore, Mr. Hanover, if you haven’t noticed. You’re talking about the old days, before “mental health awareness”. Proof of this is the fact that Ms. Biles has been universally supported and applauded for dropping out. I doubt she was unaware of the change in public opinion that had occurred. I think she knew that she would find much sympathy and support afterwards.
Quoting Hanover
Let me restate it then. The soul used to be conceived of as economy of the virtues and passions, the former aided by reason and ruling over the latter, as parsimony over luxury, temperance over insobriety, chastity over lust, etc,...and courage over fear. This economy is no longer believed in, and its elements have either been renamed or done away with altogether: the soul was replaced by the enigmatic “self”; the passions, generally bad qualities that needed restraining, were renamed “emotions”, which are not bad at all. In fact they ought to be “let out” because if you suppress them they will adversely affect not only your mental-, but even your physical-health.
In this new condition of the soul’s understanding it is little wonder that such perversions as this be heard:
Quoting god must be atheist
This modern reorientation of the natural order means there are no losers, just as in our schools scores are no longer kept in ballgames—lest some poor child learn he is inferior to his mate. Losing means you could be labeled a “loser” and suffer shame, the greatest bane to mental health—as every psychologist knows. Such a realignment of the cosmos results in sentiments like this:
Quoting Joshs
In correcting the excess of “winning at any cost”, we devolved into “not losing, at any cost”.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Do you think Tom Brady is satisfied with his Super Bowl rings? His perpetual dissatisfaction with how many he has is precisely the reason he has so many.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Why, your namesake I think knew much better, for I am sure that Marcus Tullius Cicero was very familiar with the athletic contests described in both the Iliad and Aeneid.
Okay. So tell me the difference b/w psychotherapy and psychology, and you will benefit me by eradicating my ignorance—if you are willing to educate someone you are obviously unsympathetic with.
How does this follow?
If I’m wrong about one thing, I must be wrong in everything?
What I find fundamentally racist about the current media narrative is that, for some unknown reason, the media insists on speaking of someone's colour, ethnic origins, or gender as if it is a barrier that they have also overcome.
If I say Claire is an accomplished swimmer is that not enough? Does mentioning that she is also of mixed genetics add to, or demean her? I think it suggests that she is an accomplished swimmer
DESPITE her mixed heritage. And to me, that is the epitome of racist.
And part of this pragmatism is, in my opinion, knowing that she will be universally accepted as a brave advocate of the currently popular mental health movement.
Quoting Book273
No, it is not. Everyone knows males are more athletically capable than females. That is a genetic difference. Do you think females ought to be pitted against males in athletic competition? Who do you think would win in that case?
Quoting tim wood
Despite all this talk of licensing and degrees and legalities and insurances, what do all these terms, psychiatry, psychology, and psychotherapy have in common? Is it not the term psyche, which is the Greek word for soul? If we parsed these out, psychology is “knowledge of the soul”, and psychotherapy is “healing of the soul”. Wouldn’t you expect that he who has knowledge of the soul would also be the one who knows—if anyone does—how to heal it?
I can understand an athlete's decision to cancel an appearance for good reason, whether at Wimbledon or Tokyo. What I find much less understandable is heaping praise on the athlete for bowing out for reasons of mental health. We don't say, "So admirable, so courageous" if an athlete drops out because of a badly sprained ankle, badly damaged hamstring, or a bad case of dysentery. We just cross the event off the list. I would expect the same for a mental health issue, not the weepy applause "poor thing, so courageous in her anxiety, depression" or whatever.
Mastery of emotion goes along with top athletic performance, doesn't it? Isn't full-self-possession in the face of difficult performance one of the signal virtues of top level athletes. Wimping out doesn't seem to be part of the 'scene'.
It's obviously not universal given the comments made in this thread, where many believe she was wrong to expose her mental health issues and should have persevered because that's what's demanded of heroes who bounce around on gym floors.
Quoting Leghorn
You have to overstate it this way in order to make your point, creating a brittle dichotomy, where either we are soulless automatons or we are entirely free spirited divine creatures able to counter any limitation. There is a difference between waking up on the wrong side of the bed and deciding you don't want to face the day and going back to sleep versus feeling an overwhelming sense of hopelessness and not being able to see through the bleakness and contemplating suicide. There is difference between being nervous and having butterflies in your stomach versus feeling an intrusive sense of worry that makes rational thought impossible. There are some things we can work through and others not.
And this works the same for physical disorders as well. We expect people to make it to work with a headache and stomach ache, but not with a disabling brain tumor or projectile vomiting. We can make these distinctions without pontificating on the soul and the deterioration of standards by simply pointing out that there are matters of degree. Some things are excusable and some things not, simply because they are more debilitating than others. That you don't believe Biles' limitations were serious enough to warrant her decision not to compete is a personal finding of fact by you, but it has nothing to do with changes in societal standards.
And speaking of changes in societal standards, I don't know what you mean when you say the soul was recently renamed the "self" and the passions "emotions," as if that is a modern day occurrence. The ancient Greeks spoke of the self and the emotions. Are you arguing that Biles is just part of this "modern" movement that started thousands of years ago?
You would expect the same for mental health issues, but as noted in this thread, you don't get that. You get criticism and a questioning of character. If claiming mental health problems resulted only in people crossing the contest off the list, there'd be no reason to heap praise on the person for identifying there were mental health issues.
By the same token, if claiming a sprained ankle resulted in public ridicule, you would expect athletes to conceal that reason, but if one person came forward and admitted they were withdrawing for having a sprained ankle, that person might be looked upon as heroic for refusing to conceal it and just admitting she had that problem. The heroism, to the extent that term is not being abused, is in accepting some amount of public abuse in order to destigmatize something that is far more common than we generally admit.
No doubt. But the kind of athletic contests favored by the Greeks lost favor with the Romans, certainly by Cicero's time, and were replaced in popularity by the ludi, games put on for the entertainment of the people. Those of course featured gladiators trying hard to kill or maim each other, beast fights and hunts and other forms of blood sport. Even the courageous Mr. Brady may have declined to participate in those games, no matter how many rings were offered him. Cicero deplored them.
Participants in the ludi in most cases couldn't choose not to participate. But gladiators and other performers were expensive to buy and maintain, so their owners weren't inclined to send them into the arena when they were likely to be killed or cut up due to their condition, or couldn't perform well. It would be a waste of investment and also would annoy the audience.
Personally, I hope that even in these sad times courage isn't a question of exposing oneself to harm in order to win more medals or rings.
Great books, Great series, Great portrayal of Livia Augusta. Thank you.
This movement began after the Enlightenment, which marked a radical break with the ancients. Sure, there is a word for “self” in Greek, just as their is in Latin, and all the other languages, but they are purely grammatical: pronouns referring to other nouns in a sentence. The “self” as a psychological term was introduced by the early Enlighteners as a substitute for the ancient concept of the “soul” as the immaterial part of man, and picked up later by Freud and his intellectual progeny.
A change in language almost always indicates a change in thought.
For example, before the gay-rights movement, ppl who were attracted to the same sex were called “homosexual”—a clinical description which, however, became offensive when opponents of the movement were heard so frequently denouncing “those homosexuals” in the media. The term “gay” then began to be used and stuck, and we scarcely ever hear the term “homosexual” anymore, and this is the change in language that I say resulted from a change in meaning: a homosexual is now someone who has sexual relations with someone of the same sex (a bad thing); a gay person is someone who does the same thing, but is not ashamed of it, makes it public, and is supported by the majority of that public in his or her desire to have equal rights. In other words, “homosexual” is an obsolete clinical term, “gay” a current political/social one, and the replacement for the former. The change in thought represented by this change in language is that sexual relations between those of the same sex ought to be accepted by society, not condemned.
As far as “emotion” is concerned, it comes to us from Latin via the French, but when a Roman conveyed this concept he said “adfectus”, and when a Greek did, he said “pathos”. A speaker of English in olden days said “passion”; a contemporary one says “emotion”, and I suggest this change in language marks a similar change in our conception: the old “passions” were conceived as things within us that cause us to act irrationally, and need to be controlled by reason; the new “emotions” are not so easily ruled. They are impressive in their force and demand their own rights. At best you can compromise with them; you cannot control them...
...and this gets at the root of the problem of current athletes opting to withdraw from competition: the traditional athlete attempted to master his fear, was ashamed of it, and therefore concealed it in order to achieve excellence; the current one is ambiguous: should he risk so much in competition to win outdated honors when he can withdraw and win new ones, ones stamped with the approval of the vast majority of his audience and peers?
I think Simone Biles wants to be considered the greatest athlete—what athlete wouldn’t? And she overcame a lot of adversity to get where she is. Athletes are generally praised for overcoming adversity and misfortune. Now you can cite that same misfortune and adversity as legitimate reason for not competing. You can have it both ways: if you overcome to compete, you are lauded; if you don’t overcome, and refuse to compete, you are equally praised. It is a win-win situation...
...of course you have to first get to the point where you are considered a great athlete before you can enjoy this no-fail situation—and you can’t get THERE unless you overcome every obstacle...even the mental ones.
Being full of hot air makes that possible. Be sure to tether yourself to the living room floor. :cool:
I had to look up “mug” in my Webster’s, for I was unfamiliar with its use in this context, and I discovered the British force of “someone easily deceived”, which is perhaps the force you gave it.
What I am not deceived about, I think, is that the various languages down through the philosophical tradition have attempted to translate the key terms of philosophy faithfully into their own languages. The most famous example is probably Cicero’s Latin terms to express those of earlier Greek philosophy. The assumption was that everybody was talking about the same things, just in different terms. Within this tradition, Greek psyche was translated animus by a Roman, and soul by an Englishman.
From what you said I would guess that you have been influenced by Heidegger (consciously or unconsciously), who believed that language is “the house of being”, and who thought that Cicero’s Latin terms could never convey the essence of Plato or Aristotle’s Greek ones.
Nah. It's not that uncommon even for top athletes to drop out of big competitions. But the narrative about sports have changed over time. Listen esp. to the interviews with athletes after an event, where they explain and justify why they won or lost. It's pop psychology, carefully tailored for PR purposes, going with the spirit of the times.
I think Biles' explanation of why she didn't compete in all the events is in line with the currently popular sports narrative, although I think she took it even a step further; or perhaps this was simply how it came accross, given that it happened at such a high-level sporting event.
Note: If she said she needed to take a break from competing due to an injury or some physical problem, this could mean the end of competing for her for these OG altogether (because the doctors wouldn't give her a pass for continuing). But the mental health defense was a strategic way to take a much needed break and to recover, so as to be better able to compete in the final competitions. She could have said "I need to sit this one out, and save my energy for the final performance", but this would be bad for her PR, and I'm not sure it's even allowed by Olympic standards.
I was referring to the contests instituted by Aeneas in Sicily (Aeneid, book 5) in honor of the dead Anchises. In the galley race, after Sergestus boldly attempts to go to the inside of Mnestheus as they round the turning point—a rocky crag in the sea—he founders on it, breaking his prow and oars on the rocks. Mnestheus, steering clear, races for the port, and after the sole boat left to catch: that of Cloanthus. As Vergil describes it,
hi proprium decus et partum indignantur honorem
ni teneant, vitamque volunt pro laude pacisci;
(Lines 229 and 230) “They [Cloanthus’ sailors] consider it a disgrace unless they hold the glory for their own, and the honor as acquired, and are willing to pawn their lives for the praise [that comes from victory];”—my translation—
...willing to pawn, pledge, give in exchange, however you wish to translate it, their very lives for honor and glory. That is the spirit of sailors willing to shipwreck and ruin their boat and perhaps find themselves floating in a dangerous and turbulent sea—if only they can be victorious.
This Vergilian galley race was inspired by the chariot race in the 23rd book of the Iliad, where Eumelos, after running far ahead of Diomedes, suffers the misfortune of smashing his yoke,
“...and Eumelos / himself was sent spinning out beside the wheel of the chariot / so that his elbows were all torn, and his mouth, and his nostrils, / and his forehead was lacerated about the brows, and his eyes / filled with tears, and the springing voice was held fast within him.” (lines 393-397, Lattimore translation).
These men were not slavish mercenary gladiators, but free heroic souls, willing to suffer great harm and danger in order to be the best. Homer and Vergil describe their striving for glory, and their suffering of defeat, as examples to the men of their day of heroism, courage, and what must be risked in order to achieve the honor of victory.
Actually, I noted that the word “soul” had been replaced by that of “self” to describe the part of man that is not body.
When I was a child, attending Baptist church, I learned that the soul is that immaterial part of me that flies off to heaven after my body dies. What relation it had to me as a living being, I was unaware of. When I grew up and began reading good old literature, I learned that the soul is really the immaterial part of a human being (anthropou, hominis) that describes the mixture of passions and reason that constitute his living consciousness.
Quoting tim wood
So how would YOU translate it?
Quoting tim wood
Well, in that century it certainly didn’t mean the same as automobile (“something moving of its own accord”, a mixture of Greek “autos” and Latin “mobilis”, which was coined to describe carriages motivated by either steam power, or internal combustion of petroleum gases). In the 14th century it must have meant some sort of vehicle moving on wheels and drawn by horse..., but what sort exactly I couldn’t say...
This reminds me of what I read today in the preface of Henry Adam’s autobiography, published in 1907:
“As educator, Jean Jacques [Rousseau] was, in one respect, easily first; he erected a monument of warning against the Ego. Since his time, and largely thanks to him, the Ego had steadily tended to efface itself, and, for purposes of model, to become a manikin on which the toilet of education is draped in order to show the fit or misfit of the clothes...”
Now, when I read this, though I was drawn up to take notice, I certainly didn't conceive of education as a latrine hanging on a manikin; for I was well aware of the origins of the word toilet, and we still have the word toiletry to remind us of that origin...
“...The object of study is the garment, not the figure. The tailor adapts the manikin as well as the clothes to his patron’s wants. The tailor’s object, in this volume, is to fit young men, in universities or elsewhere, to to be men of the world, equipped for any emergency...”
Here again I was drawn back—but my familiarity with the Latin tongue helped me through: I knew from the context that emergency here did not mean, as it universally does now, the same thing as alarum, so that it must mean anything that emerges, that comes out of the sea of things that might test our mettle.
She actually forewent the individual all-around, the team all-around, and every other individual event except for the balance beam, where she won a disappointing bronze.
The same sort of thing happened to Osaka after she dropped out of the French Open (because she thought it oppressive to be required to give pressers there): she either forewent or lost in Wimbledon afterwards, and lost in the Olympic 3rd-round to some unheralded player.
Once you forget about striving for greatness in favor of some social cause, you lose your momentum.
In high school, my brother, #1 on the tennis team, cut his finger badly, nicking a tendon, and faced Coach before the next match, who said he had to play anyway, despite his injury. He could hold the racquet despite his bandaged finger, couldn’t he? couldn’t he make shots? You must play!...said Coach...he refused to play, we lost the match, and Coach never forgave him.
In the old days ppl with health problems tended to conceal them. Only consider FDR in his wheelchair, carefully hidden behind the podium. Why did they do this? The fact that they did so proves they thought it shameful, like having sex or going to the toilet, or getting a divorce...all things that are no longer considered shameful...
Man once considered himself as a divine soul trapped in a corrupt body. Now he makes no such distinction: he is all body. Even his soul is just a manifestation of his corporeal brain, no different than any other organ in his body, and whose maladies are understood similarly, treatable by drugs and therapy.
You're really selling this return to the exemplar of ancient Greek sport.
The coach was an idiot. The American worship of athletics and the treatment of coaches as sages is idiosyncratic to America and something that is thankfully starting to be questioned. Parents push their kids in sports where they'd never push them in academics. Your dad should have told the coach to stop talking to your brother. Parents should protect their kids from idiots. Quoting Leghorn
No one thought FDR's polio was shameful. He got elected president 4 times. At least back then people took vaccines because they didn't convince themselves the polio vaccine was a tool of the government to control the people, or whatever the argument is today. Quoting Leghorn
The body has been considered holy for thousands of years. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.myjewishlearning.com/article/lets-get-physical/amp/
I don't know your religion, but it doesn't speak for all of mankind and to the extent it holds the human body is just like a rock, that belief is very foreign to me and not one I find interesting.
See also: https://www.neptunesociety.com/cremation-information-articles/the-mormon-church-and-cremation
In any event, whether the ancients once thought the earth flat or whether they once thought mental health disorders didn't exist, they were wrong. Why do you wish to sort through history's garbage can of bad ideas and put them back in use?
There is a general plebeification of mankind going on.
There was a time, and some people still think so, that living without honor is futile.
Whatever. There you go. You don't even bother to inform yourself what the arguments for hesistancy about vaccination are. You just spew your contempt and hatred. It's just so enjoyable to do so, isn't it? Righteous indignation feels so good!
I know all the arguments posited to justify the wrong decision. It's not that you're misunderstood. It's that you misunderstand.
Of course I know your position. You've posted it.
It's not a matter of whether I'm an authoritarian or not for me to tell you that you should vaccinate. It's a matter of right or wrong, and you're wrong. Such is true whether I'm a dictator of a totalitarian regime or I live in an anarchistic libertarian society.
This is about you and those similar denying science and people dying as a result. This isn't righteous indignation either. Even if I were a psychotic Son of Sam who enjoyed suffering and death, you'd still be denying science and people would still be denying as a result.
I understood the reference.
My point was that by Cicero's time, that of the late Roman Republic, about 600 years after the events depicted in the Iliad, the popularity of the Greek style games was diminishing, at least among the Romans. The Aeneid was supposed to depict what took place after the fall of Troy and reflected the story that Romans were descendants of the Trojans. It's unsurprising that Greek style games were described as part of that founding myth.
Gladiatorial contests were admired and lauded by many as examples of martial skill and courage in the face of death and injury as well. Some gladiators were comparable to superstars in sports today, though their social status was lowly. So, if a gladiator had a choice and declined to participate because for mental health reasons, no doubt he would have been castigated as weak as well.
It was kept from the public. It’s not that no one knew of it, it’s that it was not brought to the forefront, was little spoken of, and ignored.
I’m sure at the time of his election his disability was considered an impediment. What if he ran for office in our times? How do you think it would be dealt with now? It certainly wouldn’t be concealed or ignored. It would be brought out, spoken about publicly. It would be something he had bravely overcome, just as Biden overcame the tragedies in his family. These things are no longer hush-hush. Ppl in the public eye now regularly reveal their struggles with mental and physical problems, addictions and diseases. These things (for anyone who has lived long enough to know) were kept secret in the older days.
“In many cases, what American spirituality avoids is the bodily reality of human existence. Too much of American spirituality assumes that “spirit,” a concept originating in Greek thought and Pauline Christianity, is the opposite of “body.” Spirit — we are told — is good, pure and eternal. Body is bad, corrupt and ephemeral.”
This quote from your first link just doesn’t ring true to my experience. I attend a fundamentalist Baptist church every Sunday morning. The prayer list is gone over. Who do you think are on it, those suffering from existential crises about the fate of their souls? Of course not! It is those who are suffering from physical maladies—cancer, gout, heart conditions, injuries, etc, etc. The American churchgoer may give a lot of lip-service to spiritual salvation, but he loves God primarily because He has the power to heal his body.
And even St. Paul promised us a heavenly BODY to house our heavenly spirit. But the abstraction of soul from body is firmly seated in the ancient philosophic tradition, and is reflected in Jesus’ teachings. Jesus, as much as did Plato or Seneca, taught us to forget our bodies and be concerned solely with our souls.
Quoting Hanover
That is not my method, Mr. Hanover. Whenever I read an old book, I try to think like the author did, see the world from his point of view...
...I once corresponded with a man who believed learning from the Bible or Aristotle, etc, was “picking and choosing from the tradition” what seemed to be true, and moving on. He thought this was learning or education. What it is is actually just choosing what conforms to your already conceived belief, and ignoring what tests it, what challenges it. Who nowadays is not egalitarian, for example? According to my correspondent’s method, when reading the Gospels or the Dialogues of Plato, I should simply ignore the obvious passages where the author expresses a patently illiberal view. If I fail to do this, if I take Plato or Jesus too seriously, I might just become the next tyrant or cult-leader.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
But just vote for Trump, honey, just vote for Trump.
I agree with this. Translation is always inferior to reading the original, and thinking in the original as you read it; with which, from what you’ve said, I would guess you agree.
Where I’m not sure we agree concerns the possibility of translation. I believe it is not only possible, but even salutary—when prospective readers cannot be expected to know the original. This is particularly true in philosophy...
St. Thomas Aquinas, as I understand, was a very good interpreter of Aristotle, but he did not read Greek. He relied instead on William of Moerbeke’s literal Latin translations, which are so literal that they have been in some cases used to correct our extant Greek manuscripts!—for Moerbeke had access to manuscripts, more ancient than ours, which have since been lost.
This I learned from Allan Bloom, a disciple of Leo Strauss, the man who almost single-handedly revived the study of Platonic philosophy in the last century. He also inspired a generation or two of American students who set their minds to translating the philosophical classics literally into English, on the assumption that, since the learning of languages had lost favor among Americans, those inclined to philosophy might profit from good English translations. Products of this inspiration include Bloom’s translations of The Republic and Emile, Harvey Mansfield’s of The Prince and Democracy in America, and numerous ones by many others of the Platonic dialogues and of Xenophon; and these are only the ones I am familiar with from a quarter century ago. Many more may have been published since then.
I believe literal translation is generally superior to any other looser sort for two reasons. Firstly, it often preserves the affinities of the roots of the words in the original, which can be of great importance in interpreting philosophic texts. Porneia is universally translated fornicatio in the Vulgate; porneuo, fornicor; pornos, either fornicarius or fornicator.
Secondly, if whenever I read “fornicatio” in my Vulgate Bible I can be sure that “porneia” is behind it, I can follow the different instances of it in the different passages, comparing and contrasting its various shades of meaning in various contexts. By contrast, consider the suggested English translations for porneia in the Analytical Greek Lexicon of the New Testament: they range from “fornication” to “whoredom” throughout the Gospels; from “concubinage” (Jno. 8.41) to “adultery” in Matthew; to “incest” at 1Co. 5.1; to “lewdness” or “uncleanness” at Ro. 1.29; to “idolatry” in Revelation. In every one of these passages, the underlying Greek word is porneia, and the corresponding Vulgate term is fornicatio. In an English translation of the New Testament inspired by The Analytical Greek Lexicon, this very important fact would be invisible, and no comparison of that single word in various contexts possible.
Quoting tim wood
Latin btw has the same idiom as the Greek. “Et...et” is equivalent to “both...and”, but I feel you go to far in assuming that since you don’t feel the first kai to be “both” that you therefore can’t understand how a Greek reader’s mind worked. With enough practice, the reader begins to discern clues from the context that a second kai is coming, and finally no longer needs to mechanically translate “both...and” in his mind as he reads. In fact, in my experience reading Latin, I have found that the Roman idioms begin to creep unawares into my English composition...a salutary sign for one striving to immerse himself in another culture.
Btw, how are you able to write Greek letters here? Through an app?
This reminded me of a couple examples Seneca gave in his Moral Letter 70:
Nuper in ludo bestiariorum unus e Germanis, cum ad matutina spectacula pararetur, secessit ad exonerandum corpus—nullum aliud illi dabatur sine custode secretum; ibi lignum id quod ad emundanda obscena adhaerente spongia positum est totum in gulam farsit et interclusis faucibus spiritum elisit. Hoc fuit morti contumeliam facere. Ita prorsus, parum munde at parum decenter.
“Recently at a game of gladiators fighting wild beasts, one of the Germans, while being prepped for the morning shows, withdrew to relieve himself—no other privacy would be given him without a guard present; there he stuffed the entire sponge-mop, which had been left to clean up excrement, into his throat, and by cutting off his breath, strangled himself. This was to insult death, and what’s more, not very cleanly and not very decently.” Again,
Cum adveheretur nuper inter custodias quidam ad matutinam spectaculum missus, tamquam somno premente nutaret, caput usque eo demisit donec radiis insereret, et tamdiu se in sedili suo tenuit donec cervicem circumactu rotae frangeret; eodem vehiculo quo ad poenam ferebatur effugit.
“When recently a certain gladiator sent to the morning show was being conveyed thither under guard, as though nodding off in sleep, he dropped his head so low as to insert it into the spokes of the chariot, and held himself fast in his seat until he broke his neck from the rotation of the wheel; he escaped his sentence by means of the same vehicle which conveyed him to it.”
This I, and Seneca, offer as rare examples of “courage in the face of death”.
Then perhaps if Simone Biles had killed herself rather than participate in events she thought she'd fail in, you'd find her less disappointing.
Of course not, dear man! I simply wanted to show a side of gladiatorial combat that contrasts with your characterization of professional gladiators who could sometimes be like our “superstars of sports”.
The gladiators Seneca chose to exemplify courage were of the lowliest sort: those captured in war and forced to fight—most likely to the death.
The ancient philosophers, who were, of course, writing for aristocratic readers, had often to remind them of the knowledge of mere craftsmen, or the virtues of slaves; to broaden the perspective of those men into the larger sphere of humanity who tended to consider a man to be only a nobleman. Jesus does a similar sort of thing in the Gospels by contrasting a poor widow with the wealthy Jews casting their money into Jerusalem’s coffers, or comparing an harlot to the judges who would stone her.
In these examples Seneca was illustrating, of course, the stoic doctrine,
Fit via vi;
that a human being may choose to exit an unbearable life at any moment by killing himself, and that this the ultimate proof of freedom. This is not a modern sentiment, though suicide be as prevalent now as ever.
Biles herself, if I remember correctly, confessed to having had suicidal thoughts, and she made this confession in order to impress upon the public how burdensome her stellar athletic career had been—what a toll it had taken on her psyche. “You don’t know what we go through”, she said...
...well, it became too much for her. She didn’t commit suicide, but she withdrew from competition—and I wonder if what she said was true: that we don’t know what elite athletes go through. Maybe the pressure they experience is similar to that of a common working Joe who has divorced and lost custody of the kids and has to pay child support and suffers PTSD from his service and deals with a bickering girlfriend and ex-in-laws...etc, etc: in other words, the sort most likely to commit suicide.
The superstars were of course relatively few. They weren't as quick to bestow stardom as we are now.
I'd say that the gladiators referred to be Seneca killed themselves to avoid being slaves, performing like deadly dancing bears.Quoting Leghorn
Yes. As Epictetus put it (I think) that door is always open. Though both Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius cautioned that suicide is an option one must consider under the guidance of Reason, and isn't to be sought by anyone foolishly--"like a Christian" as Marcus put it so suggestively, or words to that effect. I always think of Tertullian relating the incident where a group of Christians went to the house of a Roman official (I forget the rank of the official) demanding that he have them killed when I remember this comment by the Emperor.
Yes, they differ widely, which is why you can’t trust them. But since sometimes you have no choice, it is best to rely on a good one, which must at least be literal. As you say,
Quoting tim wood
A good literal translation will have frequent footnotes to explain its deficiencies in certain passages. For example, the one drawback of the Vulgate in its translation of Greek words of the root porn-, is its translation of porne, which it regularly renders as “meretrix”, thusly disguising its affinity with the Roman family of words identified by the root forn-. Whenever this sort of thing occurs, a good Vulgate translation would annotate an explanation of this fact for the benefit of the Greek-less reader.
Quoting tim wood
Well, a translation must be literate in the sense of understandable. If the translation is so literal that it is incomprehensible, then literalness has been taken too far.
Nevertheless, I think the translator—having warned the reader that his is a literal translation, and that it may therefore be somewhat clunky and idiosyncratic—might expect him to make the extra effort necessary to read it...
I was reading today some encomiums of Shakespeare by poets of his day. One of them, by a certain L. Digges, begins thusly:
“To the Memory of the deceased Author, Master W. Shakespeare.
Shake-speare, at length thy pious fellows give / The world thy works; thy works, by which outlive / Thy tomb thy name must:...”
Digges violently shifts the regular order of English parts of speech in this verse—but context clears it all up for the reader willing to make the effort, who after thinking hard enough, realizes that what is meant is, “...thy works, by which thy name must outlive thy tomb.” Undoubtedly Digges, like all learned men of that day, was familiar with Latin verse and prose, to whose idioms he adapted his verse for metrical reasons...
And this is English, our native language! Sometimes we must as though translate our own language when it is so old that it has become like a foreign one. If we must sometimes do this for our native language, how hard could it be to decipher a literal translation of a foreign one?
Finally, let me offer what I think is perhaps the greatest virtue of a translation: that it most encourage the reader to learn the original. I think the best translation reminds its reader at every sentence that he is not reading the original; that that original lies, like a palimpsest, right behind his words.
Yes, Christians, especially early ones, could be irrational fanatics (as a zealous adherent to any religion can be).
For example, I remember reading somewhere that, based on Matt. 19:1-12, some early Christians surgically neutered themselves, misinterpreting the crucial twelfth verse:
“For there are eunuchs which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, which were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, which made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.”
Now, just previously in this passage, Jesus had condemned divorce almost categorically, and had widened the concept of adultery so broadly, that his disciples exclaimed it wasn’t worth getting married at all if a man was thusly to become chained forever to an unendurable wife.
From this context I think we can interpret the twelfth verse: the eunuchs born from their mother’s womb are the homosexuals; those eunuchs made so by men are the traditional ones, to which we customarily apply the term “eunuch”, whose testicles have been removed; and “those which make themselves eunuchs” are not those who cut their own balls off, but rather men, though naturally inclined toward women, nevertheless, for some greater cause, resist coitus with them.
And we must ask of Jesus why a man cannot satisfy both needs simultaneously: those of his body and those of his soul. I think he would reply that love of a woman leads to marriage and children, and that these things beget lowly common cares that contend with the rare and lofty ones of the soul, perhaps eventually overtaking and burying them. Only look at Jesus’ own life: he didn’t marry, begat no children, and constantly consorted with a small group of men whom he tried to teach, and whom he exhorted to a higher life of the spirit which required the practice of most austere discipline.
Well, who knows? Perhaps Jesus was referring to the galli, who castrated themselves as part of the worship of Cybele and her consort Attis. Probably not, though; at least it's not an interpretation Christians would favor. But then one wouldn't think the worship of Magna Mater would have been accepted by the Senate of Rome, but it was.
...except for the fact that I suspect it likely impossible to castrate yourself!...perhaps only a surgeon could clear this up.
Btw, weren’t you previously known by the cognomen, “The White”? Why, if I may inquire, did you drop it?
I was Ciceronianus in the old PF, and when that ended and the new version began I decided I would return as "the White" as a kind of homage to Tolkien. But I tired of that designation, and am not a wizard in any case, though I think I am a Ciceronian. For me, to be one isn't as distressing as it apparently was to St. Jerome.
If I recall correctly, there are brown wizards in Lord of The Rings, so you could be Ciceronianus the Brown, though in Tolkien’s world that would be a demotion from white. Funny how that works.
Yes. There was Radagast the Brown, in any case. There were also a couple of "Blue Wizards" who it seems went to the east of Middle Earth but Tolkien doesn't say much of anything about them.