Glossary - What is the Epicurean Definition of "Pleasure?"

Quote from Cassius

I see I have uncovered a major new problem: Mike and I are time zone incompatible, and he gets going right when I am about to fall asleep! I will see what I can do to fix that, but in the meantime I am afraid I am out for the night. Keep up the posting and I will catch up tomorrow! (And stay away from the Volcano!)

Thanks Cassius. Anyways, I can be at any time zone depending on my daily chores. Ok, I think you are getting sleepy. Good night. See you here again tomorrow.

From Epicurus LTM : We must then meditate on the things that make our eudaemonia, seeing that when that is with us we have all, but when it is absent we do all to win it.

It is notable that, in the starting point and ending point of the LTM Epicurus remains on common ground with all eudaemonist philosophies, and then he proceeds to the first principle of his philosophy that is the goal of pleasure/hedone. The Letter to Menoeceus is very carefully structured, exhibiting a deliberate array of subtopics and subtle gradation of nuance.

Back to first principles and on the basis of observation in Nature and human nature, before is corrupted with the empty beliefs. I have a question for this well-mood i.e. the sense of feeling of contentment or fullness that is given by Epicurus with the word "eudaemonia" and affirms that that is "with us".

As I said above is already engraved/intuitive in the molecular basis of DNA/RNA in the body of human beings, because if we observe carefully the neonates of just a week we will realize that when they are clean and with a full stomach and during their sleep or awaken are smiling often. This happens every day, and many times during the day, and I am not sure if this happens when they are in the womb. And after four weeks or more they smile with the socialized smile i.e. after eye contact with their parents or hearing sounds voices/melodies.

Of course, our friend Elayne, who is a pediatrician, knows better than me, and she is able to explain to us this phenomenon with the neonates that are smiling so early in life.

What are the mental images that are connected with concepts of words that the newborn baby has accumulated already in mind for the feeling of contentment as "eudaemonia" ? In neonates of some weeks, there are no words yet, not mental images with sheep and cows. Just senses and emotions/feelings that were born with them and are in the procedure of development and enrichment through experiences as their first social contact is within their family. And then our big societies all over that inside them are some devious and really evil persons waiting to corrupt them with lies and frauds, and many of these human beings will be lucky enough if they won't get into a madhouse.

ΚΔ.(1) Τὸ μακάριον καὶ ἄφθαρτον οὔτε αὐτὸ πράγματα ἔχει οὔτε ἄλλῳ παρέχει, ὥστε οὔτε ὀργαῖς οὔτε χάρισι συνέχεται· ἐν ἀσθενεῖ γὰρ πᾶν τὸ τοιοῦτον.

Doctrine 1. That which is blessed and incorruptible neither has any concerns on things nor does provide (things) to anyone else so that it has no part either in anger or in favors because all such things exist only in the weak.

XXXIII.(33) Σαρκὸς φωνῇ τὸ μὴ πεινῆν, τὸ μὴ διψῆν, τὸ μὴ ῥιγουν ταὐτὰ γὰρ ἔχων τις καὶ ἐλπίζων ἕξειν κἀν <Διὶ> ὑπὲρ εὐδαιμονίας μαχέσαιτο.

33. The flesh cries out to be saved from hunger, thirst, and cold. For if a man possesses this safety and hope to possess it, he might rival even Zeus in eudaemonia.

Quote from Cassius

Right -- these babies are "happy" even though they do not know a single word, or a single point of logic, which shows that neither words nor logic are necessary for happiness at the earliest stages of life, to which we look as examples of those who are uncorrupted.

This is interesting. If that is the case, no words or knowledge can explain well what happiness really is. So in order to tell the lay audience what it is, we have to explain it by making our words produce a picture that is easy to imagine. Using examples is a lot helpful.

Quote from Mike Anyayahan

If that is the case, no words or knowledge can explain well what happiness really is.

Which is why practice and translating our words into living actions is of extreme importance

Quote from Charles

Which is why practice and translating our words into living actions is of extreme importance

Gotcha! Action speaks louder than words. The application of Epicureanism in all aspects of our daily life will best define happiness and pleasure. Besides, Epicurean philosophy is straightforward and not as abstract as that of Plato, Kant, or Hegel. It's ethics is obviously practical, hence not complicated to practice.

But for the sake of studying what Epicurus is teaching us about happiness and pleasure, it is clear that they are two different things that are similar. It is still important to determine the exactness of their differences so we can avoid some false interpretations of the real message of Epicurus. If happiness for Epicurus is Eudamonia, that doesn't mean pleasure is ataraxia the way the absence of pain doesn't necessarily mean pleasure. I guess there is nothing else to define pleasure since it's the ultimate definition of such feeling. It is happiness that needs refinement.

Quote from Mike Anyayahan

If happiness for Epicurus is Eudamonia, that doesn't mean pleasure is ataraxia the way the absence of pain doesn't necessarily mean pleasure.

I very much agree with you on this point. But it is established in multiple sources (Torquatus, LtM, PD, VS) that pleasure can mean the absence of pain, however that's not to undermine pleasure as the satisfaction and fulfillment of desire. Bear in mind, Epicurean Philosophy is hedonistic for recognizing that pleasure is the chief good. Getting stuck on minor definitions or playing word games can lead us in circles, whether its eudaimonia as the Greek language says it, or happiness, or bliss, or blessedness, the destination we should always find ourselves heading towards is pleasure.

As I understand it, life is the greatest good. Pleasure is the guide to and goal of life.

Cassius said : These are excellent examples of citations to eudaimonia, Elli. It is interesting to think about how it is we might be able to rival Zeus in eudaimonia, which is based on pleasure, rather than saying that we might rival Zeus in pleasure itself.

What do you think about that - was Epicurus intending to make that distinction?

--------------------------------------

There is not a distinction actually but a description with the usage of such terms that are based on gradations of nuance among the feelings of pleasure and pain, as it is the grey color among black and white since there are "measurements" (with thoughts and actions) of a whole life that have to be done by us, and as long as this life lasts. And that is because in our life there are the distractions/obstacles with some painful situations, and these obstacles are NOT OUR OPINIONS, as the stoics claim for leading us to apathy, duty, fate and the goal of an abstract virtue.

For this, we also say that we do not choose a pleasure that leads to a pain, as similarly, we choοse and a pain to achieve a greater pleasure. The removal of a painful situation is an unsurpassed joy (that is a description of pleasure too) and this is the nature of the good as Epicurus responds to Aristotelians who were strolling around and about on what is good and what is bad etc etc.

The word "joy" is given in greek language with two words "γήθος ή χαρά" [pron. githos or chara]. Epicurus starts his letters to his friends with the word "χαίρειν" that means "be joyful" which also means "be pleasant". And Metrodorus used the word "joy" in one of the epicurean sayings "do not postpone your joy because you have only one and unique life". The Greek language is rich, and any person in any language, of course, grasps the meaning of words as joy, happy etc that all are synonymous with pleasure. It is not a word game, it is just the power of things whenever and whoever is speaking with words, for all things and issues that are not by themselves, but the power in them is when we bring them into the reality of our life, for making our calculations and for communicating with each other, since we have been evolved and survive as social beings and to communicate with each other with the sounds of words. Lucretius in the Latin language used many-many powerful words in his masterpiece and I think he invented and new terms for the purpose to describe the Nature of all Things.

For Epicurus, as he observed the phenomena and our nature there is not, for him, in a duration of time, an absolute, objective, and perfect pleasure or an absolute, objective and perfect pain. As, there is not for him an absolute, objective and perfect justice/beauty/honesty etc. For Epicurus there is not any moderation of any golden rule. There are only limits in a procedure for the achievement of the goal of pleasure, as also for him, there are means called as virtues that spring from prudence measured in accordance with the circumstances and consequences of the experiences of the person, as also for Epicurus , there is not a pain or pleasure meter since the limits are due to subjectivity on feelings in accordance with time and space that any human being lives. For this, is not given by him a list on any marble stone on what we should do for living our life pleasantly.

There are some persons that claim deviously accusing Epicurus of living in a cave with bread and water and they make the conclusion that in our era to have a car is unnatural and unnecessary. No, the desire for traveling and visiting other places, unknown and known persons as friends it is not unnatural and unnecessary desire. It is a must. It is the enrichment of memories and feelings. As it was the horse in the Epicurus era, now is the car and airplane for traveling. And if we are incapable yet to accumulate the power/energy from our star/sun or air, and we still are fighting each other for the oil for using the means of transportation and the means for cultivation of our food, we do not get under the economical/political orders to eliminate our desires and following the motto of "frugality" for living our life in a cave with bread and water and that's fine. No, we will try with all of our efforts to investigate Nature since the investigation is in our nature, for living like gods among gods. This is eudaemonia !

BECAUSE we have to remember and to not forget (this is the word “a+litheia” (true) in greek that means “without oblivion”) this again and again: Every explanation without the core that exists in Epicurean philosophy is something just to talk about since every issue and every term in Epicurean philosophy has a fixed bond with pleasure. For EP every of our choice and avoidance, in our life, serves the pleasure, and it has the pleasure in its foundation i.e. inside its core. If you follow false philosophies, false religions with obsessions, false ideologies with -isms, false mainstreams, false economical, sociological, psychological theories, it is sure that you will end up compromised, subordinated and manipulated, so then the pleasure is lost, as well as your study in Nature and Epicurean Philosophy loses its core and disappears too. So, when someone confuses things and issues with the study of EP that is a whole, he has not to say for himself that is an epicurean, he is something else that pretends that he is an epicurean.

Quote from elli

There are some persons that claim deviously accusing Epicurus of living in a cave with bread and water and they make the conclusion that in our era to have a car is unnatural and unnecessary. No, the desire for traveling and visiting other places, unknown and known persons as friends it is not unnatural and unnecessary desire. It is a must. It is the enrichment of memories and feelings. As it was the horse in the Epicurus era, now is the car and airplane for traveling. And if we are incapable yet to accumulate the power/energy from our star/sun or air, and we still are fighting each other for the oil for using the means of transportation and the means for cultivation of our food, we do not get under the economical/political orders to eliminate our desires and following the motto of "frugality" for living our life in a cave with bread and water and that's fine. No, we will try with all of our efforts to investigate Nature since the investigation is in our nature, for living like gods among gods. This is eudaemonia !

BECAUSE we have to remember and to not forget (this is the word “a+litheia” (true) in greek that means “without oblivion”) this again and again: Every explanation without the core that exists in Epicurean philosophy is something just to talk about since every issue and every term in Epicurean philosophy has a fixed bond with pleasure. For EP every of our choice and avoidance, in our life, serves the pleasure, and it has the pleasure in its foundation i.e. inside its core. If you follow false philosophies, false religions with obsessions, false ideologies with -isms, false mainstreams, false economical, sociological, psychological theories, it is sure that you will end up compromised, subordinated and manipulated, so then the pleasure is lost, as well as your study in Nature and Epicurean Philosophy loses its core and disappears too. So, when someone confuses things and issues with the study of EP that is a whole, he has not to say for himself that is an epicurean, he is something else that pretends that he is an epicurean.

I agree with this. A rich man who is grateful, happy, not anxious, appreciative, and prudent can become an Epicurean much more than a poor guy who is too anxious even with little things. It is not the amount of possession that counts but the attitude toward the possession.

Quote from Cassius

I think in part DeWitt is focusing on his observation that "pleasure has meaning only to the living" and to the resulting observation that unless we have life, no pleasure is possible, which makes life that without which there is no possibility of experiencing pleasure.

Yes Cassius. I agree. This was my point I'd like to reiterate when I said that death can remove all our pains, but it won't make us happy nor live in pleasure since we are already dead. This is why I understand pleasure not literally to be the absence of pain but something that is produced by the absence of pain and that will exist as pleasure togetber with that absence of pain that has produced it.

Quote from Cassius

OK not to pick nits again but i think the "produced by" can be taken too far. Ultimately I don't think I would agree that pleasure is produced by absence of pain any more than it would be correct to say that atoms are produced by absence of void, would it? Yes the only way to remove a feeling of pain is to replace it with pleasure, because of the nature of the beast - if we feel anything, it is either pleasure or pain in the Epicurean scheme. But to say "produced by" adds another dimension with implications that cannot be sustained.

When you derived pleasure from smelling a rose, what pain did you remove to achieve that pleasure? So I think it is important not to carry "produced by" too far.

The production of pleasure by the removal of pain is not my personal opinion. It is how I understand what Torquatus said in the second paragraph of part XL of the Book 1 of On Ends. He said "For, as when hunger and thirst are driven away by meat and drink, the very removal of the annoyance brings with it the attainment of pleasure, so in every case, the removal of pain PRODUCES the succession of pleasure. And therefore Epicurus would not admit that there was any intermediate state between pleasure and pain;"

As I understand it, painlessness does not necessarily mean pleasure because painlessness is the end process of the removal of pain that produces pleasure. Therefore, there is only either pain and pleasure (not either pain or the absence of pain)

My point is that the absence or removal of pain does not define pleasure so it would be strange if I say that pleasure is the removal of pain. It says here that there is pleasure after the removal of pain. The process of removing pain is not a state but a process that turns pain into pleasure nor a state of painlessness that defines pleasure.