Is gratitude a katastematic or kinetic pleasure?

It seems to me that discussions of katastematic pleasures in terms of relative stability or relative duration run into a kind of sorites question: how many grains of sand do you have to have before you can call them “a heap”? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox) How stable for how long does a pleasure have to last to become katastematic?

I found it interesting that the Wiki article made the point that “Vagueness alone does not necessarily imply invalidity.”

++++++++++++++++++

Sunday night, I was watching a football game and cheering for my team: a pleasurable activity that I would call kinetic. During breaks in the action, I would allow my awareness to go to my bodily feeling of continued satisfaction and contentment from the light dinner I had eaten sometime before. Is that more katastematic? I initially thought so. Or does the iteration of my awareness itself imply kinetic activity that determines how the pleasure would get labelled?

Let's suppose that the issue we are really discussing were the difference between "excited" or "stimulated' experiences, such as riding a rollercoaster or running for the touchdown, vs experiences of daily normal experience that do not involve pain (so we are going to label them pleasurable) but that also do not involve that "rush of excitement" or "rush of stimulation."

Here's one of the problems that you run into unless you are careful, because while these words may be the reverse of excited, most (except for calm and maybe a few others) carry negative connotations that no one but a Stoic would endorse.

I think we have to entertain the possibility that THE katastematic pleasures are simply ataraxia and aponia.

Ataraxia is the tranquility of mind that results from ridding one's mind of fears of death and the gods and obtaining a proper understanding of natural phenomena, and so on. I'm working on a good description of aponia. It's not just "freedom from pain" in a banal sense.

Ataraxia becomes the background of our experience. Once we really lock it in (*really* and truly lock it in!! I know I'm not there yet!), we approach our all our other experiences with that stability and tranquility of mind that can't be shaken or taken away.

Searching the texts for mention of the pleasures Epicurus cites in On Choices and Avoidances is a good idea.

However, I would offer that it's important to search the Greek words and not the English translations. That said, I'm curious to look at your citations to see what words are used in the Greek text!

The words Epicurus uses are in DL 10.136 are:

καταστηματικαί ἡδοναί (katastematikai hedonai) "katastematic pleasures"

• ἀταραξία (ataraxia)
• ἀπονία (aponia)

κατὰ κίνησιν ἐνεργείᾳ βλέπονται (kata kinesin energeia blepontai) "(pleasures) consisting in motion and activity"

• χαρὰ (khara) "joy" (Hicks)
• εὐφροσύνη (euphrosyne) "delight" (Hicks)

Sometimes the English translation use "joy" or "delight" or similar words to translate hedone "pleasure" which obscures what the word used is. So, I'm really not trying to be difficult, but translations can really obscure what the actual text actually says sometimes.

Here's where I replaced words conveying katastematic and "kinetic" pleasures:

Post

RE: Modern Neuroscience And The Katastematic / Kinetic Debate

There aren't a lot of opportunities, but I decided to try and replace single words with either katastematic or kinetic pleasure.

It should also be remembered that the phrase "kinetic pleasure" isn't *actually* what Epicurus says. What he says is (as literally as I can make it):

"Peace of mind (ataraxia) and freedom from pain (aponia) are condition/state pleasures; joy (khara) and delight (euphrosyne) are seen in relation to (κατὰ) motion (κίνησιν) by means of activity (ἐνεργείᾳ)."

ἡ μὲν…

Don

July 2, 2023 at 11:04 PM

εὐφροσύνη occurs in Diogenes Laertius, Book 10 in the 10.136, but also occurs in the
μᾶλλόν τε εὐφρανθήσεσθαι τῶν ἄλλων ἐν ταῖς θεωρίαις.

"He will find more delight than other men in contemplation/consideration/speculation."

See my website on the characteristics of the sage:

The word is also used in another form as the title of the book that Timocrates wrote, Εὐφραντοῖς, to slander Epicurus, mentioned at DL 10.6.

A form is in VS48:

While you are on the road, try to make the later part better than the earlier part; and be equally happy when you reach the end.

πειρᾶσθαι τὴν ὑστέραν τῆς προτέρας κρείττω ποιείν, ἕως ἂν ἐν ὁδῷ ὦμεν· ἐπειδὰν δʼ ἐπὶ πέρας ἔλθωμεν, ὁμαλῶς εὐφραίνεσθαι. (lit. to make merry, to cheer; so here "equally merry")

I've also found εὐφροσύνη in the inscription of Diogenes of Oenoanda:

Fragment 215, column 1

[5 lines missing]

[- ca.6 -]ἀ̣π̣ελέν[χ]ε-

τ̣αι. ⁦ vac. 1⁩ τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν̣

αἱ μέν εἰσιν κεναί,

αἱ δὲ φυσικαί. ⁦ vac. 1⁩ αἱ μὲν

οὖν φυσικαὶ τὰ τοσαῦ-

τα ζητοῦσιν ὅσα εἰς

τὴν τῆς φύσεως ἡμῶν

εὐφροσύνην ἐ[στίν]

[ἀνανκαῖα, αἱ δὲ κεναὶ]

[5 lines missing]

In English:

Of the desires some are vain, others natural. Now those that are natural seek after such things as [are necessary] for our nature’s enjoyment, [while those that are vain] .................................................................................

fragment 10, column 4

[τοσ]ό̣ν[δε προστίθημι].

[ἐπει]δ̣ὴ̣ [ὄναρ] τελο̣ῦ̣μεν

τ̣ὰ̣ ̣ἀ̣φροδείσια, ὡς κ̣αὶ ὕ-

παρ, οὐδέν ἐ̣σ̣τι τὸ μ̣ά-

την ἀπ' αὐτῶν εὐφρ̣ο-

σύνην λαμβάνε̣ι̣ν̣

ὅτι καθεύδομεν. ⁦

...we perform sexual acts (ἀ̣φροδείσια aphrodeisia), it is no good arguing that the pleasure we derive from them is unreal because we are asleep.

Those are the texts I had readily at hand this evening. I don't think I searched for euphrosyne before, and I'm curious if there are more. I think khara (the other "kinetic" pleasure) has more references.

Getting back to the discussion, I find it interesting that Diogenes of Oenoanda uses euphrosyne to describe the pleasures of sex. The famous fragment of Epicurus's includes sex:

67. I do not think I could conceive of the good without the joys of taste, of sex, of hearing, and without the pleasing motions caused by the sight of bodies and forms.

οὐδὲ γὰρ ἔγωγε ἔχω τί νοήσω τἀγαθὸν ἀφαιρῶν μὲν τὰς διὰ χυλῶν ἡδονάς, ἀφαιρῶν δὲ τὰς διʼ ἀφροδισίων, ἀφαιρῶν δὲ τὰς διʼ ἀκροαμάτῶν, ἀφαιρῶν δὲ καὶ τὰς διὰ μορφῆς κατʼ ὄψιν ἡδείας κινήσεις.

The "sight of bodies and forms" is actually ὄψιν ἡδείας κινήσεις, lit. "seeing pleasant movements" and that last word is kineseis, directly related to the word in DL 10.136: "(pleasures) consisting in motion and activity"

Could it be that pleasures, writ large, can be categorized as either katastematic and "those consisting of motion and activity" and within those, sub-categorized as either forms of ataraxia and aponia or khara and euphrosyne? The Oenoanda inscription seems to imply that the pleasures of sex are a form of euphrosyne. Diogenes Laertius seems to imply that contemplation (or festivals if you take the other tack) consist of euphrosyne. VS48 implies one should have euphrosyne on the road of life.

I'm just throwing this out as food for thought for now. For now, it's after midnight so...

***

Morning Postscript...

In looking at my other post referenced above, I noticed that I said Epicurus also uses the word ἐνεργείᾳ from DL10.136 in the Letter to Herodotus:

[37] "Hence, since such a course is of service to all who take up natural science, I, who devote to the subject my continuous **energy** (τὸ συνεχὲς **ἐνέργημα** (energēma)) and **reap the calm enjoyment of a life** (ἐγγαληνίζων) like this, have prepared for you just such an epitome and manual of the doctrines as a whole."

[37] "Ὅθεν δὴ πᾶσι χρησίμης οὔσης τοῖς ᾠκειωμένοις φυσιολογίᾳ τῆς τοιαύτης ὁδοῦ, παρεγγυῶν τὸ συνεχὲς ἐνέργημα ἐν φυσιολογίᾳ καὶ τοιούτῳ μάλιστα ἐγγαληνίζων τῷ βίῳ ἐποίησά σοι καὶ τοιαύτην τινὰ ἐπιτομὴν καὶ στοιχείωσιν τῶν ὅλων δοξῶν.

The - let's call it - "kinetic/energetic" pleasure of *studying* natural science leads to ἐγγαληνίζων "the calm enjoyment" of life which to me sounds like a katastematic pleasure. ἐγγαληνίζων literally means "spend calmly." Which interestingly enough is related to γαληνός "calm, especially of the sea"! There's that ocean/sea metaphor again in relation to stable katastematic pleasure.

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, γαληνός

Quote from TauPhi

everything that is alive, has senses and a brain (or the corresponding organ) capable of translating sensory inputs into experiences, is equipped with katastematic pleasure at birth. This pleasure is, simply put, background noise to life.

As such, katastematic pleasure has nothing to do with intensity, location and duration. These can be descriptors of kinetic pleasures. If one really wants to apply these descriptors to human katastematic pleasure, they would look something like this:

intensity: subjective and unquantifiable

location: somewhere between one's ears

duration: lifespan

This is interesting, but in pondering it, I keep coming back to Epicurus' wording. To paraphrase: the healthy functioning of the body and lack of disturbance in the mind. But, to me, this mustn't be considered simply background noise, and it still consists of intensity, location and duration.

For something to be a pleasure, by definition it must be felt. With this in mind, a "background state" could easily be misconstrued (and typically is, outside of this forum) as a "neutral state", even though I don't think that's what you're saying TauPhi .

By being in either the body or the mind, these felt pleasures have a location. They have duration, which can be anything from fleeting to long lasting. (Think of times when your body feels really great or your mind is really clear. For me, these times are fleeting. If they're long lasting for you, tell me how you do it!) And they have varying intensities, depending on the particular situation.

So apparently where this is leading me is to the conclusion that ataraxia and aponia are most likely the katastematic pleasures. But they are like all other pleasures in that they vary in intensity, location and duration. If there is anything that categorizes them as separate from other pleasures (notice that I studiously didn't say "makes them special") it's the breadth of their locations: aponia being throughout the body at a given moment and ataraxia being throughout the mind at a given moment. Unless, of course, you're a god. (Which kind of sounds similar to a Stoic sage as I write this... but I digress.)

To bring this back to burninglights ' original question:

The Greek word for gratitude is χαρις (kharis) which is directly related to χαρα (khara), the specific kinetic/energetic pleasure in DL10.136. And both words are related to χαίρω (khairō), rejoice, take pleasure in a thing, etc.:

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, χαίρω

So, to provide a response to the original question, in light of the etymology of the words, "gratitude" is a kinetic/energetic pleasure.

I'm so conditioned to just say "kinetic pleasure" that I wanted to once again, for my own peace of mind (pun intended), to look again at what Epicurus is quoted as saying in DL 10.136:

ὁ δ᾽ Ἐπίκουρος ἐν τῷ Περὶ αἱρέσεων οὕτω λέγει: "ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἀταραξία καὶ ἀπονία καταστηματικαί εἰσιν ἡδοναί: ἡ δὲ χαρὰ καὶ ἡ εὐφροσύνη κατὰ κίνησιν ἐνεργείᾳ βλέπονται."

That last line:

ἡ δὲ χαρὰ καὶ ἡ εὐφροσύνη κατὰ κίνησιν ἐνεργείᾳ βλέπονται

has some interesting constructions.

κατὰ κίνησιν (accusative)

along/through/in motion, as opposed to "rest" (στάσις; related to katastematic)

ἐνεργείᾳ (dative) by means of activity/action (opposite of dynamie)

There's a lot of to-do in philosophical discourse of the time about enargeia vs dynamei that is beyond me for now. It seems to do with actual action vs potential power/strength?

In any case, just saying "kinetic vs katastematic" masks a whole lot of stuff going on under the surface.

Quote from Don

In any case, just saying "kinetic vs katastematic" masks a whole lot of stuff going on under the surface.

That's my thought too, and that's why I also think that the ultimate crux of the issue is that Epicurus is extending the word "pleasure" to cover both the exciting/stimulative type of activities that everyone acknowledges to be pleasure, plus what I would call - if I were German - EveryOtherExperienceOfLifeThatIsNotPainful.

It's the sweeping inclusion of normal everyday healthy non-painful existence (which is what is being referenced in response to Chysippus' hand argument) under the word "pleasure" that is the revolutionary issue and which makes "a life of pleasure" an attainable goal.

Within that sweeping overall term there are all sorts of pleasurable experiences, including (referencing Don above) "ataraxia ... the tranquility of mind that results from ridding one's mind of fears of death and the gods and obtaining a proper understanding of natural phenomena, and so on." Within that big picture framework I can see the usefulness of discussing k/k matters as a means of being sure we understand every detail. But the big picture is not established by the k/k detail, and any valid interpretation of a k/k distinction is going to have to fit within the big picture that all non-painful life experience is "pleasure."

I think we're all in agreement as to the importance of the Epicurean focus on the importance of freedom from fear of the gods and fear of death. What I don't know that we are all together on is that (1) if there are only two feelings, and (2) if someone is alive they are aware of feeling something(s), and (3) each and every one of those feelings is *either* pleasure or pain but not both in the same part of the person's body or mind.

I actually think most all of us *are* together on that last paragraph, but we're not together on the ramifications of what that last paragraph means. Cicero wouldn't accept that pleasure can embrace both stimulative pleasures and normal ordinary healthy feelings of proper functioning, and I am not sure that we (like Cicero) are all together in accepting it either. It would be surprising if all of our readers here, new and old, *were* all together, because it's a dramatic redefinition of the normal use of the word.

Thank you for your post Godfrey. I'll try to clarify few things and explain in more detail where I suspect our points of view differ.

Firstly, this:

Quote from Godfrey

For something to be a pleasure, by definition it must be felt. With this in mind, a "background state" could easily be misconstrued (and typically is, outside of this forum) as a "neutral state", even though I don't think that's what you're saying TauPhi .

I am strongly opposed to the idea of a "neutral state". I agree with Epicurus that there are only two distinct states (pleasure and pain). Katastematic pleasure, in my understanding, has nothing to do with neutrality. Quite contrary, it's felt constantly throughout one's life and is sometimes disturbed by pain caused mainly (but not only) by fear which distorts our perception of life's experiences. So, in my mind, katestematic pleasure is synonymous to background noise to life or a will to live or healthy release of dopamine in our brains. It is close to @Don's metaphor of an ocean (if I read it as intended) or mine of a forest which I made sometime in the past. It's what makes us want to experience life.

Which brings me to your next observation. Here we definitely see things differently.

Quote from Godfrey

But, to me, this mustn't be considered simply background noise, and it still consists of intensity, location and duration.

"Background noise" might not be perfect description of katastematic pleasure but I hope my clarification above gives better picture of how I see this kind of pleasure. I treat it separately from every other pleasure (for me every other pleasure is kinetic) and I deprive katastematic pleasure of duration for a reason. The duration is there but the pleasure lasts exactly as long as our lives and ends with our death.

If katastematic pleasure would be fleeting and unstable and lasted only for some time, k/k division would make no sense and would be reduced to an absurd. I mean, how much time do we need to declare a pleasure long-lasting so it's katastematic and no longer kinetic? 15 minutes? Two days? 5 years? At this point we might as well start discussing which superhero is better, Superman or Spiderman?

As far as the remaining two descriptors are concerned (location and intensity), I have my reservations as well.

Location is simpler, so I start with this one. Katastematic pleasure, they way I understand it, is located in our minds. By that I mean our minds, if they are healthy, interpret our lives as a pleasurable phenomenon.

Intensity is the descriptor I have the most problems with. And it applies to both katastematic and kinetic pleasures. In my eyes, this descriptor is too vague to be considered a good descriptor of pleasure. Which pleasure is more intense? Eating strawberry ice cream or watching sunset at the seaside? There is innumerable variety of pleasure and all of it is unquantifiable. How can we say that one variety of pleasure is more intense than the other? Ice cream is 5 and sunset is 3?

Even if we consider only one variant of a pleasure, let's say watching sunset, and try to establish intensity levels we hit the wall quite quickly. Watching sunset for 2 seconds is less pleasurable than watching it for the whole minute? If yes, by a factor of what?

So, I say yes to variety of pleasures but I'm not too sure about intensity of pleasures.

Quote from Godfrey

(Think of times when your body feels really great or your mind is really clear. For me, these times are fleeting. If they're long lasting for you, tell me how you do it!)

I wish I could tell you how I do it but, unfortunately, I don't so I can't. And I hope I was clear about that katastematic pleasure is neither of these things, in my humble opinion. I treat both clarity of mind and healthy body as kinetic pleasures. No matter if they last a day or a year. (Well, a year in my case is just wishful thinking at this point. I'm too old for that kind of privilege.)

I think you're on to something, burninglights , especially in light of what Epicurus says in the letter to Herodotus (to paraphrase):

[37] "I devote my continuous energy to the study of natural science and reap the calm enjoyment of a life like this."

A. "my continuous energy to the study of natural science" (pleasure through motion)

B. "the calm enjoyment of a life like this." (katatematic pleasure)

C. reap: A leads to B

You just to put the work in on A to live the calm life of B.

Quote from Don

C. reap: A leads to B

The actual word used is:

ἐποίησα (epoiēsa)

1st person singular aorist indicative active

from ποιέω (poieō, from which we actually get the word poet)

Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ποιέω

In this case:

I created

I brought into existence

I produced

I made

So, "reap" is a more poetic but entirely acceptable way of saying "From the pleasure of my study of natural science, I produced my calm life."

Quote from Don

You just to put the work in on A to live the calm life of B.

TauPhi , I think that burninglights ' post #32 above does a good job of clarifying what I was trying to describe as to how my understanding of katastematic pleasure differs from what you are describing. And I find this understanding of it useful in using our reasoning and agency to craft our most pleasant life.

Quote from TauPhi

I am strongly opposed to the idea of a "neutral state".

We're definitely in agreement there.

Quote from TauPhi

it's felt constantly throughout one's life and is sometimes disturbed by pain caused mainly (but not only) by fear which distorts our perception of life's experiences.

My main question is whether or not this is correct. Whether there is actually a background state, or a constant fluctuation between pain and pleasure in all parts of the body and mind. I'm beginning to see it as the latter.

Quote from TauPhi

If katastematic pleasure would be fleeting and unstable and lasted only for some time, k/k division would make no sense and would be reduced to an absurd. I mean, how much time do we need to declare a pleasure long-lasting so it's katastematic and no longer kinetic? 15 minutes? Two days? 5 years? At this point we might as well start discussing which superhero is better, Superman or Spiderman?

Ataraxia and aponia have no inherent time component as far as I can determine as a non-Greek speaker. If they define katastematic pleasure, there is no reason why katastematic pleasure would have to have a particular time component, let alone last a lifetime. The only reference to time is the secure knowledge of their continuance, which depends on prudent choices and avoidances. In this case, they're "stable" because you've done the work necessary and can tap into the particular feeling of pleasure at any time, even though you don't feel it all of the time.

It does seem to me that kinetic pleasures, in general, have less breadth of location than have ataraxia and aponia. But that depends on the exact definitions of ataraxia and aponia.

I hope I'm making sense and not driving people crazy with this line of thought! My own thinking is evolving, and we have so few sources to go on that it seems necessary to do the digging to really try to get a handle on the deeper ideas. And as always I welcome frank speech!

As for Superman and Spidey, I have my opinions. But those belong in another corner of the internet (a corner to which I never go )

I had further thoughts this morning on the importance of what's going on under the surface of DL 10.136. I think I've stumbled on this idea before but never explicitly formulated it.

In that citation from Epicurus's On Choices and Rejections (sorry, I really dislike "Avoidances"), he posits two kinds of pleasure:

A. "katastematic" pleasures which I think we agree has something to do with "stability," however we're defining that for the moment.

B. pleasures derived from motion by means of activity.

Here's my morning thought:

Pleasures of the B variety are initiated or are derived through motion by means of activity. I get the impression that κατὰ κίνησιν ἐνεργείᾳ refers to motion initiated both by voluntary action of oneself and activity acting upon a person.

LSJ has ενέργεια defined, in part, as the opposite of εξις (exis): "a being in a certain state, a permanent condition as produced by practice (πρᾶξις)."

That εξις "a permanent condition as produced by practice" sounds a lot like what I and others have been trying to say about "katastematic" pleasures. Epicurus himself wrote that he produced the permanent condition of his calm life through his practice of studying natural science. And I interpret that "calm" as referring to his mind being calmed from fears, anxieties, etc. of gods, death, etc. by internalizing - by *knowing* - the natural explanation of phenomena.

So, my offering is that katastematic pleasure is the pleasure derived from slowing down and experiencing the "permanent condition as produced by practice." If we want to describe it as "background" that could work, but that seems now to me to shortchange the experience. Katastematic pleasure derives from practice, study, work, activity, ἐνεργείᾳ, but once you have that stable foundation, no one can take it away.

I need to think about this more, but this is off the top of my head on a Friday morning.

Quote from burninglights

One thing I'm not clear on with katastematic pleasure being "a permanent condition as produced by practice" is whether this implies that the practice must be ongoing for the permanence to remain.

Is Don or anyone saying that Epicurus classified katastematic pleasure as "permanent?" Are we beginning to tread on "once saved always saved" theology?

Quote from Cassius

Quote from burninglights

One thing I'm not clear on with katastematic pleasure being "a permanent condition as produced by practice" is whether this implies that the practice must be ongoing for the permanence to remain.

Is Don or anyone saying that Epicurus classified katastematic pleasure as "permanent?" Are we beginning to tread on "once saved always saved" theology?

I suppose yes, for my part... Without all the Christian baggage. And it's not just saying "I believe"!!

If you root out false beliefs, superstitions, fears of divine retribution, anxiety about death, etc., yes, those are gone and permanent, IF you've really put the work in to pull them out, root and branch (to stick with the agricultural metaphors). It's the work of really studying, thinking on it, and internalizing that's the hard part.