Episode 195 - Cicero's On Ends - Book Two - Part 05

    Technically, having the absence of pain throughout your body and mind is the fullest pleasure. Practically, I'm not sure that I've ever experienced that! Maybe when I was a baby?

    In any part of the organism, once all pain is gone you can experience increasing pleasure in that part, at least until the increased sensation causes pain. So, interestingly, the maximum pleasure of the entire organism is the absence of pain, whereas the absence of pain is the minimum of pleasure for any specific location in the organism.

    This explains the interaction of intensity, location and duration. The location of the minimum pleasure in every location throughout the organism is considered a greater pleasure than the most intense pleasure in a few parts of the organism. Practically speaking, this provides some guidance for maximizing pleasure through working with all three of the components instead of just the component of intensity.

    (oops, we cross posted)

    Edited once, last by Godfrey: Clarification (October 10, 2023 at 1:29 AM).

    Quote from Godfrey

    So, interestingly, the maximum pleasure of the entire organism is the absence of pain, whereas the absence of pain is the minimum of pleasure for any specific location in the organism

    Yes as to the first part before the comma, but I am not sure that our definition of pleasure as absence of pain necessarily leads to the part after the comma. Perhaps this is where the "quantity" issue comes in, with quantity being relevant differently at the macro vs the micro levels. Maybe quantity applies at the macro level but at the micro level that is where you have duration, intensity, and location?

    Maybe duration intensity and location are not relevant at the macro / full level? (Maybe I should say the macro/full perspective.)


    Does that involve the Diogenes Laertius statement that there are two types of happiness/pleasure, one at the god level and one capable of increase and decrease?

    "They say also that there are two ideas of happiness, complete happiness, such as belongs to a god, which admits of no increase, and the happiness which is concerned with the addition and subtraction of pleasures."

    At the risk of interrupting a very important and interesting thread in this conversation, I personally found this line intriguing:

    Quote from "Torquatus" in Reid translation

    ‘No, a pleasure different in kind. For the quenching of the thirst brings with it a steady pleasure, whereas the pleasure which accompanies the process of quenching itself consists in agitation.

    These two:

    1. a steady pleasure
    2. [pleasure consisting] in agitation.

    Sound to me exactly like the categories of katastematic (a steady pleasure) and kinetic (agitations) pleasure.

    In fact, Rackham comes right out and translates the phrases that way:

    Quote from "Torquatus" in Rackham translation

    "No, it is a different kind of pleasure. For the pleasure of having quenched one's thirst is a 'static' pleasure, but the pleasure of actually quenching it is a 'kinetic' pleasure."

    I think this again show the importance that Epicurus and later Epicureans insisted on using these categories to clearly show the all-encompassing spectrum of pleasure that their philosophy insisted upon.

    Quote from Cassius

    Maybe quantity applies at the macro level but at the micro level that is where you have duration, intensity, and location?

    I've actually been wondering for a while if magnitude/quantity was describing the same thing as condensing/intensity, but I think you're going in a better direction. Here's my latest thinking:

    Magnitude/quantity simply comprises intensity, location and duration. This can occur at any intensity at any location for one moment, or at many locations for a long period of time. The limit of the magnitude/quantity is the absence of pain throughout the organism, for the life of the organism. But, practically speaking, we can work with intensity, location and duration of individual pleasures (through reasoning about our desiresand comparison with our experiences of pleasure and pain) in order to maximize the pleasures available to us. This is exactly what Epicurus did on his deathbed: there wasn't much physical pleasure available to him, so he maximized his mental pleasures, through recollection of his most intense pleasures, in the time that he had left.

    A question is "why is absence of pain throughout the organism (macro) the limit of magnitude, whereas a more localized pleasure (micro) can increase beyond mere absence of pain?"

    - Macro pleasure, by definition, can't increase in location. A micro pleasure can.

    - Can macro pleasure can increase in duration? Or is it specifically "godlike"? A micro pleasure can increase in duration.

    - Can a macro pleasure increase in intensity? Epicurus is apparently saying that it cannot, that it's limit is the absence of pain. From experience it seems that a micro pleasure can increase in intensity.

    - Intensity the actual Feeling of pleasure or pain, right. Location and duration are simply where and when that Feeling occurs.

    Is there something special about intensity at the macro v the micro level? Is Epicurus' description of the limit of magnitude/quantity as a type of homeostasis? Could the latter case be a situation where there are no pains anywhere, ever, to overcome so that there is no need to pursue a pleasure in one place to offset a pain in another place?

    Quote from Godfrey

    A question is "why is absence of pain throughout the organism (macro) the limit of magnitude, whereas a more localized pleasure (micro) can increase beyond mere absence of pain?"

    I think we could reword that this way:

    A question is "why is absence of pain (which is the definition of pleasure) through the organism (at macro level) the limit of magnitude, whereas a more localized pleasure (at the micro level) can increase?"

    If that is saying the same thing, which I think it is, the answer is pretty obvious: a macro level pleasure cannot increase by definition. because it has no more room to increase, while pleasure at any smaller degree than macro level can increase because it still has room to increase.

    I am not sure this is any more difficult than remembering "positive, comparative, superlative" as parts of speech.

    In "good, better, best" the "good" gives you a description of what you are talking about, the "better" is the comparative form distinguishing one from another, and the "best" is by definition the superlative form which you are saying cannot (again by definition) increase.

    I am thinking words like "full" and "complete" and "pure" and "godlike" are meant as superlatives and simply being used to refer to the "best" possible.

    And I think these issues we're discussing are the primary and important big picture items to get clear first.

    Secondarily we have the kinetic/katastematic issue as Don has interjected I think correctly as "types" or categories of pleasure that are included in the sweeping mix as descriptions that involve manner of experience. As differences involving manner of experience those are useful to consider but i don't see them as words expressing comparatives or superlatives of Pleasure as the general category. You can use and need both. They are types of pleasure like mental vs bodily or hearing vs seeing or long-lasting vs short, but I don't see them as being evaluated as better or best types of Pleasure, which is the big complaint I have against the usual K/K analysis. I would say both are "good" types of pleasure (all types of pleasure being "good") but their relative contribution toward one's total experience can increase and decrease with circumstances as part of making up the total organism over its lifetime. Many types of trees can make up a forest, but what we want to talk about in general terms as a way of evaluating the best way of life (the way we want to set as our goal) is the "forest" level. If we expend our entire conversation on "what about elms?" and "what about poplars?" and "what about oaks?" and "what about pines?" etc etc then we lose our focus on discussing "what about the forest as a whole?"

    I wanted to quickly drop in to this thread to say that this episode has brought up some questions for me - regaring the use of the word "pleasure" in every-day speech.

    I personally feel that I want to start using more words, and different words, which are more accurate for each and every given situation.

    The word pleasure can encompass so much, however in my mind and perhaps others who speak English, the word pleasure is used to apply to sensations that have a certain intensity and stimulate the senses. (Perhaps other languages/nationalities have a different understanding than American/British people. For example, in France they might say "It's a pleasure to meet you" - but in the USA we would never say that.)

    So then more accurately we would say that the goal of Epicureans is to seek out pleasing experiences, pleasantness, and also pleasures (sensations) - what is agreeable, pleasant, and pleasurable. When is comes to mental pleasure we say "enjoyable" or "pleasant".

    Quote from Kalosyni
    Quote from Don
    Quote from Kalosyni

    For example, in France they might say "It's a pleasure to meet you" - but in the USA we would never say that.

    ^^ LOL. I say that all the time.

    Perhaps you are French? lol :saint: (So then I guess I am incorrect in my understanding regarding the frequency of this usage).

    I will admit I started to use it with more frequency over the last few years... Can't think of a reason why ;)

    Godfrey to continue on this part of the discussion in an admittedly narrow and technical way rather than making a super important point, I wanted to make another comment on your statement here:

    Quote from Godfrey

    So, interestingly, the maximum pleasure of the entire organism is the absence of pain, whereas the absence of pain is the minimum of pleasure for any specific location in the organism.

    I made a comment on this already, but here is something more about considering any interpretation of "absence of pain" as a "minimum":

    From section IV of Book Two (again I am rewording to make it clear who is speaking so check the original:

    Torquatus: ‘Can then anything be sweeter than to feel no pain?’

    CIcero: "Nay, be it granted that there is nothing better, for I am not yet investigating that question; does it therefore follow that painlessness, so to call it, is identical with pleasure?’

    Torquatus: ‘It is quite identical, and is the greatest possible, and no pleasure can be greater.’

    Presuming that last sentence is translated correctly, and I have no reason to doubt it, this is another explicit statement that the Epicurean position is that:

    1 - "Painlessness"/ "Absence of Pain" is IDENTICAL to pleasure. I interpret that to mean that the two concepts ("absence of pain" and "pleasure") are two separate words being used to describe exactly the same thing, meaning that the two words can be used interchangeably in referring to an individual discrete feeling.

    2 - That using the term 'painlessness" or "pleasure" without any modifiers or caveats can also imply that you are referring to pleasure at the "macro" or "whole organism" level and therefore you are referring to "pure pleasure" which by definition means the "greatest pleasure," "no pleasure being greater."

    My point in this post is that i am cautious in the wording so we can try to track the Epicurean usage. If you refer to a person, or a person refers to themselves at the moment, as being "painless," then that seems to be the equivalent of saying that they are at the height of pleasure in both body and mind as a full organism. If you refer, on the other hand, to some part of your body as being painless (such as hand or foot or your mind) then you are just referring to a location and saying nothing about the rest of the body or mind, which could be experiencing pain at the same time.

    So I am cautious about referring to "painless" as a starting point. A painless foot and hand and adding them up is a good start, yes, but "painlessness" at the macro full organism level is apparently being defined as being 100% full of pleasure and a very great pleasure. Now maybe "variation" can explain this in a way consistent with "starting point," but I'm not sure that's consistent with the texts.

    Maybe in the discussion of variation we'll find more to go on as to that aspect.

    Quote from Cassius

    I think we could reword that this way:


    A question is "why is absence of pain (which is the definition of pleasure) through the organism (at macro level) the limit of magnitude, whereas a more localized pleasure (at the micro level) can increase?"


    If that is saying the same thing, which I think it is, the answer is pretty obvious: a macro level pleasure cannot increase by definition. because it has no more room to increase, while pleasure at any smaller degree than macro level can increase because it still has room to increase.

    Sorry for disappearing... busy day!

    Yes, that rewording of the question is the same thing.

    The last paragraph in Cassius ' quote shows that, yet again, I wasn't clear enough in my overall analysis above. As far as it goes, what is presented in this paragraph is obvious. The components of location and duration obviously cannot increase at the macro level, but they can at the micro level.

    What's not obvious to me is the role of intensity. If intensity can increase at the micro level beyond the absence of pain, why can it not increase at the macro level? Or is intensity the wrong description of this component of pleasure? Is it really just a two way switch that jumps from pleasure to pain? If this is the case, then the three components are feeling, location and duration. If so, "feeling" describes both the composite of the three components and one of the components, in which case I think it's a better description to say that pleasures and pains vary through the modifiers of location and duration, and avoid the word "intensity". Which might actually be the way the Greek texts are written: at least in PD09, I've been understanding (as has at least one translator) "condensed" to be equivalent to varying intensity.

    I don't have a problem with that, and that might be exactly the conclusion from PD03 and PD09. This means that what is perceived as "intensity" is, in fact, an increase or decrease (condensing) in location and/or duration. My general sense is that I can increase the intensity of a pleasure or pain without increasing the location or duration. Is that actually incorrect? If one was to dig into the science, is a nerve ending (if that's the correct term) an on-off switch? Imagine a pleasure or pain resulting from a pressure. Does increasing the pressure simply recruit more nerve endings (increase the location) rather than elicit a greater response from the original quantity of nerve endings? If I'm getting this right, that seems to be what Epicurus intuited and what he based his conception of maximum pleasure on.

    Am I making a comprehensible presentation? If so, does it make any sense?

    (Cross posted again...)

    Quote from Godfrey

    What's not obvious to me is the role of intensity. If intensity can increase at the micro level beyond the absence of pain, why can it not increase at the macro level

    Godfrey I think we crossposted but we were thinking about the same subject. It seems to me that "absence of pain" is not terminology that can be improved at either macro level or when referring to a particular location.

    Quote from Godfrey

    If intensity can increase at the micro level beyond the absence of pain, why can it not increase at the macro level

    This sentence I think cannot be correct as to "absence of pain' at the micro level. Describing relative intensity between pleasures requires more qualifiers it seems like, because even though "absence of pain" seems to be identical with pleasure, "absence of pain" seems to always be used to describe a top limit while "pleasure" seems usable in ways that can be more or less strong.

    If they are identical terms it would seem that they could be used interchangeably, but apparently not. Maybe there is a clue in "usage" which Cicero starts talking about in the same section as with words referring to variety and gladness

Unread Threads

    1. Title
    2. Replies
    3. Last Reply

    2. Evidence of Survivors of Pompeii and Herculaneum 1

      • kochiekoch
      • November 20, 2024 at 8:17 PM
    3. Replies
      1
      Views
      100
      1

    4. Don

      November 20, 2024 at 8:17 PM

    2. “Better to lose the money because of me than to lose me because of the money.” 3

      • TauPhi
      • November 19, 2024 at 9:30 PM
    3. Replies
      3
      Views
      227
      3

    4. Don

      November 19, 2024 at 9:30 PM

    2. An Anti-Epicurean Article - "The Meaning of Life Is Not Happiness" (For Future Reference) 12

      • Cassius
      • November 19, 2024 at 12:17 PM
    3. Replies
      12
      Views
      902
      12

    4. Pacatus

      November 19, 2024 at 12:17 PM

    2. Was De Rerum Natura intended as satire? A lecture by THM Gellar-Goad. 14

      • Julia
      • November 11, 2024 at 4:09 PM
    3. Replies
      14
      Views
      1.1k
      14

    4. Julia

      November 11, 2024 at 4:09 PM

    2. New Slideshow: Nothing Comes From Nothing

      • Cassius
      • November 10, 2024 at 3:51 PM
    3. Replies
      0
      Views
      538