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

Yes Mike I think that removal of pain is one description of producing pleasure, but not the only way, as illustrated by the smelling of the rose example. There was no real pain present with the rose was smelled, or that was relieved by smelling the rose.

This issue (pleasure obtained by filling a need / healing a pain) is closely related to the "replenishment" theory of pleasure discussed at length in the Gosling and Taylor book as one of the theories of pleasure, but I recall that the book discusses how the Greeks abandoned this as a complete discussion of the process. I will see if I can point to some excerpts but it may take me as while...

OK a few clips:

1 - Illustrating Plato using replenishment as the basis of his theory of pleasure, which allows him to categorize it as inferior to philosophic pursuit:

OK here Gosling and Taylor begin to discuss how Platon and other Greeks recognized the deficiency of the replenishment model (and with this I think Epicurus would have agreed). I may paste some more clips if I find some particularly good ones, but I'll probably have to drop and come back to this later. The point for now is the there are inherent problems with the "replenishment model of pleasure" which we need to keep in mind as we discuss it. (Gosling and Taylor's paragraphs are alls sequentially numbered so 6.7.3 is all the page cite we really need)

Here, stating that the replenishment argument is used in support of how pleasure cannot be the good:

Here is an early part of the Gosling and Taylor analysis that kinetic and katastematic pleasure were not fundementally different to Epicurus, and the reasoning relates to this "quenching" / replenishment discussion:

Gosling and Taylor are being academically polite in describing current interpretations of the kinetic / katastematic distinction as having some "oddities," and they are being tongue-in-cheek by suggesting that the confusion may have been on the part of Epicurus. That is because, in my own words, it is the modern commentators who are confused, and the prevailing kinetic / katastematic interpretation of Epicurus' views is nothing other than BS!

I will break here from posting clips and truthfully the details of this discussion from here below in another subforum set up two years ago. No doubt we'll bounce back and forth between subforums, but if someone wants to start a substantive detailed analysis of this please try to use the main location: Kinetic and Katastematic Pleasure

This and succeeding sections of the Gosling & Taylor book are what spurred Nikolsky to write "Epicurus On Pleasure."

Norman DeWitt comments on the K / K distinction (or lack thereof) in "Epicurus and His Philosophy" -- "It makes no difference that some pleasures are static and others kinetic."

I think we are together you and I Mike, but I see a great potential for confusion on this issue, and indeed I think it is the main potential confusion that Cicero used to erect his main attack on Epicurus' theory. And it's the main "attack" used today to pigeonhole Epicurus into irrelevancy. Any normal healthy young person who comes to think that "pleasure" is the exact equivalent of "absence of pain" is going to close the book on Epicurus before reading any further. And indeed that's exactly what I think Cicero and most of the modern commentators who obsess on this point intend to happen.

Even setting up an elaborate explanation based on terminology is often going to be too late for most people who don't have the desire to become professional philosophers. It's my view that this issue needs to be hit, early, hard, and unrelentingly! Given that it is the focus of much modern discussion, it's already too late for 98% of the people who come here for them to postpone the issue and undertake a longer study of Epicurus over time -- they have already been persuaded by the academic phalanx of a deep error here, and they aren't going to make any progress beyond it until it is dealt with firmly and clearly. If they don't get past this immediately they are just going to join the "old crotchety men club" looking to Epicurus for another method of anesthesia to sooth the pain of their wasted time.

Quote from Mike Anyayahan

only because Torquatus describes the highest pleasure

Exactly! CICERO is the culprit (not Torquatus the real person, who was evidently a good Epicurean). [Edit: Or at least Cicero was one of the first culprits, or the most effective culprits, or the most relevant culprit, because it is HIS work which survived.]

I've always been very sympathetic to Cicero but when I consider his writings in this context my sympathy for his eventually "losing his head" is somewhat diminished.

Edit 2: There are also troublesome passages in the letter to Menoeceus, but those can be explained away by reference to context. Epicurus himself certainly was not intending to confuse. Cicero definitely WAS intending to confuse.

Norman DeWitt referencing Cicero:

"I do not believe he could have misrepresented the truth so successfully had he not understood it completely."

Quote from Mike Anyayahan

This is why I am also worried about which translation displays more fidelity to Epicurus' message. I don't know how to gauge it and which to trust.

Absolutely correct in my view Mike. It is impossible to place blanket trust in any of them, and I think the only way to do that is to follow what Lucretius (Epicurus) recommends in book one of the poem: start with the physics and basic epistemology principles, and never accept any interpretation / translation of Epicurus that conflicts with those basic principles. And since the universe and human nature have not changed in 2000 years in respect to fundamentals, we ought to be able ourselves to recreate both the methodology and the general conclusions -- just like the hunting dogs sniffing out prey under the leaves, in Lucretius' analogy, also with one step illuminating the next.

That is a huge reason why I think so many people go so far wrong, they do NOT start with the basics and hold to that standard for deciding how to understand the rest. If they would, most all of this confusion would be dissipated, even with the relatively small number of texts that we have left.

Quote from Mike Anyayahan

That is something I should consider, too. On the other hand, I'm not used to Ad Hominem. I care less about the intention. Rather, I am more interested in the context and condition.

I think it is generally admirable to take that attitude, but unfortunately a deadly mistake, because many people (not all) do twist and turn and misrepresent the "truth" to suit their own purposes. Many people are honestly mistaken, but many are not, and those seem to be the ones who exert the most energy in manipulating other people. Even Epicurean philosophy, if you don't keep the fundamentals of the nature of the universe in mind, can be used to argue that ethics position X, Y, or Z is what "everyone" should adopt.

Personally, Mike, some years ago I came to the conclusion that virtually EVERYTHING I was ever taught from birth until graduating from college about religion, ethics, philosophy, economics, and much of the rest was somewhere between largely inaccurate and downright lie. But I am not a cynical or pessimistic person, and I don't think it had to be that way in the past, or has to be that way in the future. There HAVE BEEN people like Epicurus who seem truly benevolent and committed to being truthful. But such people have not written the history books, they haven't written the school textbooks, they haven't written most of the philosophy books, and they don't control the media or the government or any other institution of modern society.

The ultimate battleground so far is going to prove to be the internet, where the orthodox academic establishment does not currently have total control of the flow of information. But they are working on that, and it's important for "dissenters" to take advantage of this opportunity while it is available.

Quote from Mike Anyayahan

I just don't know how happy or sad was Cicero

I know I have seen one or more of the commentators suggest that Cicero really swung into anti-Epicurean mode after his daughter died, with the implication being that he just wasn't able to handle that.