Mental pleasure/pain more intense and longer lasting than physical pleasure/pain

Frank -- Thanks for joining us here on the forum. I just posted a "Welcome" message to you -- please be sure to take a look at that.

As for your question, the first and primary source that comes to mind on this topic is the statement from Torquatus as recorded in On Ends Book One section XVII -- see item (3) below

De finibus bonorum et malorum : Cicero, Marcus Tullius : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Latin and English on opposite pages

archive.org

Should the topic of pain be of interest I can talk about the biology and psychology of pain at great length. And yes, "existential" (psychosocially driven emotive pain) is more vexing and more long lasting than nociceptive (physical structure) pain. It is a major player in many forms of "chronic pain".

This is *definitely* a question of great interest. Many people come to Epicurean philosophy thinking he is focused on "bodily" pain, and it's a surprise to find that he puts equal or really greater stock in the mental side.

I file sure anything you'd offer on pain would be of great interest here so thanks for offering!!

I second that!

Okay, I'm happy to contribute. And, we could come at the topic (collectively) from a variety of vantage points. I would be happy if this was a discussion, not a didactic. In that spirit, let me throw out a couple of frameworks that I think are helpful to get the big picture of pain as a human experience. Then we can see where the discussion takes us from there.

For me, to really understand pain it is pivotal to understand evolution. Pain essentially says two things from an evolutionary perspective: 1) this is a problem, and 2) this is concerning. The former reports function and structure issues and is summarized in neurobiology as nociception. The latter reports existential risks and is summarized in the neurobiology of suffering and anguish. Pain biology always contains both elements, though the proportions can be greatly different and have greatly different courses over time. Evolution clearly understood that structural dysfunction presented risks, both physical and existential.

A great starting point to understand the dynamic interplay of these two issues is a simple, non-serious childhood injury. We've all see a child do something like fall down or fall (non-seriously) from a bicycle, get up screaming, run to a parent, and lapse in to further screams and crying. From the reaction one would anticipate that important injury had occurred. However, the parent nurtures the child, checks wounds and finds them minor, reassures and comforts the child, and in a few minutes the child is out playing with friends again. Examination of this scenario reveals that injury sets off both nociception and suffering/anguish. But, when risk and seriousness are removed from the equation the anguish goes away and the nociception quickly becomes a modest issue.

So, that takes me to the Lucretius quote, "“But when the mind is excited by some more vehement apprehension, we see the whole soul feel in unison through all the limbs, sweats and paleness spreadover the whole body, the tongue falter, the voice die away, a mist cover the eyes, the ears ring, the limbs sink under one; in short we often see men drop down from terror of mind; so that anybody may easily perceive from this that the soul is closely united with the mind, and, when it has been smitten by the influence of the mind, forthwith pushes and strikes the body.”

And, indeed, it strikes the body - in this context - with pain behaviors and exacerbation of nociceptive pain. Adult behaviors are outgrowths of these early presentations. When stress, fear, and vulnerability are high pain tends to be high. A great deal of the discussion of "chronic pain" is actually a discussion of chronic anguish. Opioids (pain pills) relieve both nociceptive pain and emotive pain. The reason is that they are interlinked in evolutionary neurobiology. The "opioid pain crisis" of the 1990's and before was really a discussion of opioids used for existential pain (they work, and then lead to addiction).

Okay, that's enough for the moment. So, let's see what portion of this strikes interest and we can go from there.

Fascinating! It's interesting (and reassuring) how closely our experience follows the biology. We've occasionally discussed, mostly anecdotally, the difference between "pain" and "suffering". For example if I have an injury I may eventually notice that I'm avoiding doing certain things, even though doing them doesn't actually hurt. Or I'll anticipate an action being painful and tense up, thereby making it more painful than it would be otherwise. I'm thinking here of the injury as being "pain" and the avoiding or anticipating as being or causing "suffering".

How do desires fit into this evolutionary picture of pains, or do they? Are desires, biologically, considered pains or are they completely different? Philosophically, they seem to be a type of pain and yet, at the same time, they seem to be something quite different.

Also, is a complete absence of pain something that is considered neurologically possible while maintaining full consciousness?

My thinking is that, eventually, it would be most interesting to get an outline of how pleasure, pain and desire operate, together and separately, then perhaps dig into details from that point. But in my ignorance I might be overly ambitious about such a complex subject....

BrainToBeing , that's a great post! Thanks for sharing your expertise and insights. Dr. Anna Lembke (author of Dopamine Nation) touched on some of the same themes. I like the way you described the relation but difference between nociception and suffering. How would you describe the pain from "painful" memories or similar mental pains? There's no actual nociception going on there, is there? I'm curious for you to expand on the "existential pain" you mentioned in passing.

Quote from frank1syl

In other words, the things in our power are mental abilities and capacities.

While I would agree with that generally there's also a limit to that: Diogenes Laertius X-117: "But before considering it let us explain what he and his followers think about the wise man. ... He will be more deeply moved by feelings, but this will not prove an obstacle to wisdom. A man cannot become wise with every kind of physical constitution, nor in every nation."

Quote from frank1syl

But, taking my cue from the Stoics, the way to lessen mental pain is to realize that this is an area in which we have considerable power, and to focus on our mental capacities and abilities, rather than external events or circumstances, is the best way to approach mental pain

I'd agree that certainly the way to deal with mental pain is to focus on the cause of the mental pain and to work as hard as possible to fix the conditions that led to it. The problems with the Stoics is that they seem to focus on simply by force of will convincing yourself that the pain is not significant, or is a matter of indifference, and that approach can conflict with working to to change the condition that caused it. In the case of two of the most significant pains of life, fear of the gods and fear of death, Stoic physics is an absolute barrier to arriving at what Epicureans consider the truth to be -- that neither are a cause for fear or concern in the first place.

What this reminds me of is the constant interplay between Stoics and Epicureans as to virtue. Epicureans do not deprecate the virtues, such as prudence and wisdom and all the rest. Epicureans simply see the virtues as tools to an end and not an end in themselves.

In the example your giving about focusing on what is within control vs outside control I see the same issue. Yes it's obvious to everyone that some external events are beyond our control, but it should be equally obvious that some ARE within our control, and the first step of proper action would be to make that distinction and act on the ones that can be acted on, not fixate on the fact that those within our total control (our minds) are all that is important.

As in many of these comparisons you can seem to end up in a similar place at time, but the Stoic worldview if followed consistently would never get you to a pleasurable life, because no matter how the modern stoics work to water it down, true Stoicism holds pleasure in contempt and values nothing but "virtue" as the proper end.

I think a lot of people tend to look for the commonalities and then stop because they don't want to go further, as they sense the ultimate issue. Just like we're discussing in the podcast right now, the question of pleasure vs virtue underlies everything else:

Quote from Cicero in On Ends Book 2

So setting aside the systems of ail the rest, there remains a contest not between me and Torquatus, but between virtue and pleasure: a contest of which Chrysippus, a man both shrewd and careful, does not think lightly, for he considers that the entire decision about the supreme good is involved in the opposition between these things.

Wow, you people are a delight! So many great ideas, and things that might be said about them. For my part, I hardly know where to start or what to respond to. I'll stay with the medical, neurobiological issues since that is where I might be of most benefit.

Quote from Godfrey

For example if I have an injury I may eventually notice that I'm avoiding doing certain things, even though doing them doesn't actually hurt. Or I'll anticipate an action being painful and tense up, thereby making it more painful than it would be otherwise. I'm thinking here of the injury as being "pain" and the avoiding or anticipating as being or causing "suffering".

Reacting to past injury in this way might be considered "suffering"; however, I would put it in the category of adaptive strategy. Indeed, in most cases we do have caution or avoid places and circumstances where we have previously suffered injury. The aphorism "once burned, twice shy" comes to mind.

In contrast, "suffering" is more tightly related to living with or reliving the anguish of a prior situation. For example, with the death of a parent we all would feel loss and some suffering. However, some people who saw themselves as highly dependent on the parent might have this suffering go on for years.

Quote from Godfrey

How do desires fit into this evolutionary picture of pains, or do they? Are desires, biologically, considered pains or are they completely different? Philosophically, they seem to be a type of pain and yet, at the same time, they seem to be something quite different.

In my view desires are not equivalent to pain (existential or nociceptive). However, our desires, and particularly the loss of them as lost dreams, do produce existential anguish. And, because losses produce existential anguish they may compound nociceptive pain - making it much worse and lasting much longer. Also desires in the form of "that shouldn't have happened" cause existential anguish and do the same thing - propagating and exacerbating our perception of pain. So, sociological loss and psychological loss, particularly where compounded by expectations of "shouldn't have" and anger, markedly exacerbate nociceptive pain, lead to pain treatment failures, and extend pain symptoms into years or longer where the nociceptive injury might largely recover within weeks or a few months.

Quote from Godfrey

Also, is a complete absence of pain something that is considered neurologically possible while maintaining full consciousness?

No. There is a rare, serious condition called "Congenital Insensitivity to Pain". (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3564101/)

This leads to tissue destruction and early death. So, such a condition is not impossible.

On the other hand, with less drama, there are many people who don't pay much attention to pain. For example, extreme sports enthusiasts (example: dirt bike riders) may be injured seriously many times and yet they quickly get over it and don't pay much attention to residual pains. This is an interesting subject (too long for this entry).

Quote from Godfrey

My thinking is that, eventually, it would be most interesting to get an outline of how pleasure, pain and desire operate, together and separately, then perhaps dig into details from that point. But in my ignorance I might be overly ambitious about such a complex subject....

It would easily support a whole book. The problem is that the complexity and some of the answers would not be appealing to a large audience.

Quote from Don

How would you describe the pain from "painful" memories or similar mental pains? There's no actual nociception going on there, is there? I'm curious for you to expand on the "existential pain" you mentioned in passing.

Because of the biological cross-connection of nociception and suffering we tend to use the word "pain" to cover both. So, as you said, we may refer to "painful" memories involving losses or abuses that did not actually involve any nociceptive pain. So, this is an interesting philosophical area which explores how types of experiences generate our vocabulary, and how this vocabulary may be subsequently extended to uses that involve some element of the original type of experience, while actually not correlating with it entirely. (Essentially, the vocabulary of metaphorical, experiential Venn/Euler diagrams.)

"Existential pain" may then be understood as a type of suffering that derives from adversity of various types. Two paths lead to "existential pain" as a term: 1) When we talk about loss we want it to be understood as important, interfering, and anguish-producing; so, we use "pain" vocabulary to transmit these ideas; 2) people suffering a lot of existential pain are considerably more prone to experience nociceptive pain even when the nociceptor is minor and transient.

Okay, this is probably way more in this entry that you would wish to see. So, I will stop. Hope the above helps and answers some questions (though perhaps generating others).

Best to all you smart folks!

By the way, I'm listening to Dr. Glidden on Prolepsis in a podcast on this site. He talks about "living in the present moment and living without fear". Indeed, these are critical to stress and pain management. A great deal of stress is derived from "living in the past" (worry or anger about past events) or "living in the future" (again, worry or fear about imagined future events). Living in the present moment emphasizes seeing what is, rather than what was or might be. And generally the real "now" is not as stress provoking as the other periods. (Of course, there is acute injury or acute loss, but "acute" doesn't last very long.) So, living in the now is a path to reduce the biology that generates pain - nociceptive or existential.

Quote from frank1syl

I believe that Epicureanism has it right when it says that mental pain is worse than physical pain.

Based on how people consume opioids when they report pain I believe you are right. Addiction as a response to structural pain is rare. The reason for this is that addiction produces dysfunction whereas people with serious structural pain are focused on improving function. Conversely, where chronic pain is primarily psychosocial and existential then addiction to drugs is rather common (because drugs are "mind altering" and "take away" the anguish.)

Quote from frank1syl

But, taking my cue from the Stoics, the way to lessen mental pain is to realize that this is an area in which we have considerable power, and to focus on our mental capacities and abilities, rather than external events or circumstances, is the best way to approach mental pain. This is often the opposite of how we try to lessen mental pain, which is to try to change our circumstances -- go on a cruise, buy a new car, redecorate our homes, take a pill, increase our aim for what is neither natural nor necessary, etc.

The mechanisms of "mental pain" are complex, and commonly tragic when the issues are severe. We need to remember, of course, that mental pain can come in greatly different levels. If you screwed up the answer on question number 26 of yesterday's gardening test you might feel some mental pain, but a vacation would probably be good. Alternatively, if chronic mental pain is the result of childhood abuse then all of those efforts to "buy the way out of the pain" typically don't work. In my practice I saw many people who felt worse after coming back from an expensive vacation. They learned that they can feel better (and typically the pain was better, or even gone, during the vacation) but then they come back to "reality" and sink into deeper anguish.

Yes that's the lettter to Menoeceus:

[133] For indeed who, think you, is a better man than he who holds reverent opinions concerning the gods, and is at all times free from fear of death, and has reasoned out the end ordained by nature? He understands that the limit of good things is easy to fulfill and easy to attain, whereas the course of ills is either short in time or slight in pain; he laughs at (destiny), whom some have introduced as the mistress of all things. (He thinks that with us lies the chief power in determining events, some of which happen by necessity) and some by chance, and some are within our control; for while necessity cannot be called to account, he sees that chance is inconstant, but that which is in our control is subject to no master, and to it are naturally attached praise and blame.

[134] For, indeed, it were better to follow the myths about the gods than to become a slave to the destiny of the natural philosophers: for the former suggests a hope of placating the gods by worship, whereas the latter involves a necessity which knows no placation. As to chance, he does not regard it as a god as most men do (for in a god’s acts there is no disorder), nor as an uncertain cause (of all things) for he does not believe that good and evil are given by chance to man for the framing of a blessed life, but that opportunities for great good and great evil are afforded by it.

[135] He believes that the misfortune of the wise is better than the prosperity of the fool. It is better, in short, that what is well judged in action should not owe its successful issue to the aid of chance. [1]

Of course, there can be no doubt that some things happen by happenstance or circumstance, and some as the result of choice. When you descend into the neurobiology of "will" it becomes even more complicated. So, on the topic of pain - particularly existential pain - we come to Epictetus: "It is not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters." In theory, our reactions are "under our control". However, even there potentials of neurobiology are the confounder.

Quote from Cassius

It is better, in short, that what is well judged in action should not owe its successful issue to the aid of chance. [1]

Yet, chance ultimately cannot be avoided, since it permeates down to the last atom. This is why judgement is often illusory - a foible of reason, a critic of authority.

Sounds reasonable as a general priority, but I would question whether it is really that easy to segment things. Death as an example of things that cannot be changed in the long run can still be affected by planning for the time and manner you encounter it. So even as to things beyond your control you still plan for them (for example life insurance is sometimes appropriate).

I wonder whether it's not more practical to line things up in order of significance in terms of pain and pleasure, and then to deal with them in that order (considering whether they can be changed or not as part of the analysis)?

Quote from frank1syl

My main interest is practical. If mental pain is greater (impacts us more) than physical pain,

To make this statement true, we would need to discover a way to measure both types of pain. 'Greater' might not be fortunate adjective here. 'Different' would probably be better. Also, mental pains can lead to physical pains and vice versa.

Quote from frank1syl

then my focus ought to be on things entirely under my control (my free will), and secondarily, things I have some partial control over (chance?), and lastly, should not concern myself with things I can't control (destiny).

What you think you have in your control can easily stop being in your control. From practical point of view, Stoic dichotomy of control doesn't seem to be applicable to humans. It would be perfect for us if we were purely reasonable creatures. We're not. We're creatures that mostly feel and sometimes reason so having pleasure and pain as guidelines seems to be a better approach in life.

To illustrate my points, I'll give you a short story of Pious Peter that I created for this occasion. The story won't guarantee me next Nobel Prize in literature but I hope it can show you that one type of pain can lead to another and stuff in our heads is not so easily controllable if our reasoning is flawed (and it is way more often than we wish it was).

Pious Peter worries greatly that a god will not accept him in heaven (mental pain). This makes Peter stressed so he can't sleep well anymore (physical pain). He's constantly tired (physical pain). His ability to perform at work decreases exponentially (mental). He gets fired (mental). He worries even more (mental). He can't eat properly now (physical). His body is weaker and weaker (physical). His mind takes him to darker and darker places (mental). Pious Peter can't control what's supposed to be in his control anymore (mental). He reaches for alcohol and pills (mental and physical) and his downward spiral continues.

I'll stop here or the story gets too drastic but I hope you get my point.

Instead of thinking in fixed categories of greater/lesser; mental/physical; controllable/uncontrollable, in my opinion, it's much more beneficial to try to learn as much as possible about the nature of ourselves and our surroundings and figure out how to wisely pursue pleasures and avoid pains so we can feel that the overall balance is positive. This way we can enjoy our little game of life and, when times comes, leave the stage smiling.

Quote from TauPhi

figure out how to wisely pursue pleasures and avoid pains so we can feel that the overall balance is positive

So, in summary, is this then the core issue of the Epicurean? If so, i guess I'm not an Epicurean. I'm more interested in doing something constructive as my core driver. I deny pleasure where pursuing it would not be constructive (e.g. coffee and a glass of wine at dinner are my only drugs). I voluntarily accept pain where it comes necessarily as a consequence of doing something constructive (e.g. vigorous exercise entails some pain). And, I volunteer for existential pain when I struggle to understand things knowing that it will separate me from the interests of, and connection to, the average human. But, maybe that's just me. Certainly the last of these pertains clearly to the members of this erudite community.