"Absence Of Pain Is Pleasure" - How Would You Articulate That To Someone?

That's a *great* post 16, Cassius !! Well said!

My 15 post was very much an experiment in stream of consciousness writing with a little editing after the fact. I'm okay with it for what it is.

I completely agree that "pleasure" is the North Star of Epicurus's philosophy. He defined it in *all-encompassing* terms precisely because he made it the guide of life. However...

I continue to read the texts as saying Epicurus and the ancient Epicureans taught the distinction of katastematic and "kinetic" pleasure as a practical expression of that all-encompassing nature, and that we can be more confident of always having access to katastematic pleasure than kinetic pleasures. However...

The recent in-depth discussions of "absence of pain = pleasure" have given me a new perspective on the katastematic/kinetic "debate." The health of the body and the tranquillity of the mind *is* katastematic pleasure. The "normal" functioning of freedom from pain in body and mind that has been discussed *is* katastematic pleasure. "Absence of pain" in the mind is literally ataraxia which Epicurus gives as an example of *a* katastematic pleasure. No matter what else is going on in our lives, we always have access to that health of the body and tranquility of the mind IF we allow it to happen, IF we have banished those fears, anxieties, worries that Epicurus taught stand in the way of experiencing *pleasure** in its all-encompassing joyful, delightful, calm, exciting, tranquil variations.

Quote from Don

The recent in-depth discussions of "absence of pain = pleasure" have given me a new perspective on the katastematic/kinetic "debate." The health of the body and the tranquillity of the mind *is* katastematic pleasure. The "normal" functioning of freedom from pain in body and mind that has been discussed *is* katastematic pleasure. "Absence of pain" in the mind is literally ataraxia which Epicurus gives as an example of *a* katastematic pleasure.

Yes I think this is the way things are going, and I think we are essentially in total agreement. Expressing these things is tricky and that's where we can get better with practice. For example in Kalosyni's post above as to how to describe "mixed situations" I think we have to be careful and precise, and it relates back to the discussion we had recently about how to evaluate things that are going on simultaneously, like the separate pains and pleasures of Epicurus' last day.

Part of the weight that remains to be removed from the "absence of pain" terminology is how to flip back and forth easily between seeing that you don't have to expect every ounce of pleasure from life before you can experience any pleasure, but on the other hand it is proper and helpful to talk about exactly that -- the theoretical goal IS to expel every ounce of pain, at which you would have reached the limit of pleasure.

I think that's what can be confusing about the way Cicero's Torquatus is flipping so quickly from saying "the absence of pain is pleasure" to saying " the absence of pain is in fact the HIGHEST pleasure."

At least for me, I am not yet familiar enough with the dual implications to move from one to the other and back again without confusing the issue and thinking that, "Well if I can't hit the highest pleasure without expelling every ounce of pain, then there is a "kind of pleasure" that I'll never reach, because I am afraid I am never going to be 100% successful at expelling all pain."

Apparently there is something in my thought process (not sure what yet) that makes me think that "the perfect is the enemy of the good" and that there is a tension between 100% pleasure and 99% pleasure (another title of a recent thread). Somehow the theoretical goal of 100% pleasure seems an insult to 99% pleasure, and yet I think it would make no sense at all that somehow it takes a totally different set of tools and actions to achieve 100% pleasure rather than 99% pleasure.

The Buddhist/Stoic planted implication is that the only way to reach 100% pleasure is by being an ascetic, because only by denying yourself most of the ordinary pleasures of life will you never have any disappointment or letdown, and you're infinitely better off doing so rather than living a life of 99% normal pleasurable activities. All of that is because 100% is infinitely better and more to be chosen than 99%. And I think that makes no sense and it's no way it could have been Epicurus' position.

"Absence of pain" sounds to me (maybe conditioned by religion?) like an absolutist position, and yet Torquatus and apparently the ancient Epicureans are flipping right from "anything that is not painful is pleasurable" to "and to be totally without pain is the greatest pleasure."

I think seeing how "being totally without pain is the greatest pleasure" relates to "anything that is not pain is pleasure" remains to be the subject of a lot of discussion and essays and memes and explanations to make that more clear.

And that's what reminded me to repost the "Perspectives Chart" I started working on. It needs total reworking but this issue is what is driving that -- making clear how to get comfortable with flipping between constructions that say 'the absence of pain is pleasure, and indeed the greatest pleasure." That "indeed" reflects a perspective we have to learn.

Thinking out loud about some potential rhetoric that needs to be fine-tuned but here's the thought:

Q: What's the difference between Pop Modern Epicureanism and Classical Greco-Roman Epicureanism?

A: Pop Modern Epicureans accept Cicero's argument that absence of pain (ataraxia / tranquility) is something different and higher than Pleasure, while Classical Greco-Roman Epicureans laughed in Cicero's face at the very idea.

Quote

Cicero: "...[B]ut unless you are extraordinarily obstinate you are bound to admit that 'freedom from pain' does not mean the same thing as 'pleasure.'"Torquatus: "Well but on this point you will find me obstinate, for it is as true as any proposition can be." ...

Cicero: Still, granting that there is nothing better (that point I waive for the moment), surely it does not therefore follow that what I may call the negation of pain is the same thing as pleasure?" Torquatus: "Absolutely the same, indeed the negation of pain is a very intense pleasure, the most intense pleasure possible." CIcero - "On Ends" Book 2:iii:9 and 2:iii:11 (Rackham)

Cassius: Your post #16 above is a powerfully well-crafted and articulate homily on pleasure, in response to Eoghan’s question – so much so that I’ve bookmarked it for myself.

The niggling concern I would have with stopping there, though, is that without the kind of “fleshing out” in Don ’s post #21 (which I’ve also bookmarked), especially the part I quote below, your post #16 could almost have been written by an Aristippian Cyrenaic* (even with your opening point that “tranquility and ataraxia are fully contained within the word pleasure, but ‘pleasure’ is not fully contained within tranquility or ataraxia”). Unless I glossed over something in my reading (not enough coffee yet ) …

Don: “The health of the body and the tranquillity of the mind *is* katastematic pleasure. The "normal" functioning of freedom from pain in body and mind that has been discussed *is* katastematic pleasure. "Absence of pain" in the mind is literally ataraxia which Epicurus gives as an example of *a* katastematic pleasure. No matter what else is going on in our lives, we always have access to that health of the body and tranquility of the mind IF we allow it to happen, IF we have banished those fears, anxieties, worries that Epicurus taught stand in the way of experiencing *pleasure** in its all-encompassing joyful, delightful, calm, exciting, tranquil variations.”

Add Don ‘s statement, or something like it, to your homily (I mean that as a positive characterization!), and I think you have a pretty complete brief “epitome” – or at least a powerful opening summary – of the Epicuran telos.

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

* At least of the kind Kurt Lampe discusses in his The Birth of Hedonism, where he attempts to correct some of the cruder interpretations of the Cyrenaics.

Quote from Pacatus

The niggling concern I would have with stopping there, though, is that without the kind of “fleshing out” in Don ’s post #21 (which I’ve also bookmarked), especially the part I quote below, your post #16 could almost have been written by an Aristippian Cyrenaic* (even with your opening point that “tranquility and ataraxia are fully contained within the word pleasure, but ‘pleasure’ is not fully contained within tranquility or ataraxia”). Unless I glossed over something in my reading (not enough coffee yet ) …

I think what you're observing there is the issue of how context affects the presentation of detailed issues. I perceive Eoghan's post as referring more to "non-specialists in 2023 who speak English who want to get started understanding what Epicurus stands for." In that context I would say you want to explain the differing aspects of "Pleasure" as fully as possible in understandable everyday English without use of foreign or very technical words.

The context where the people you are talking to are familiar with the controversies regarding kinetic and katastematic labels, and are wondering why there is so much discussion about those terms in some quarters, is different. For them, I think you want to then move to Don's passages and explain to them how "katastematic" and "kinetic" map pretty neatly onto "stimulating pleasures" and "other kinds of pleasure which don't necessarily result from stimulation."

Only the most advanced in reading are really going to be interested in the controversy as to whether these labels derive from Diogenes Laertius mapping later developments (such as Carneades) on top of Epicurus, or whether they derive from years of interactions with the Stoics, or whether Epicurus himself held those these labels to be extremely important.

What's clear from any perspective is that just as Epicurus was narrowing his definition of "Gods" to exclude supernatural implications, he was expanding his definition of "pleasure" to include not only "sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll" but "pleasures of normal daily living which derive from the mind's appreciation of the normal healthy state as something that is desirable in itself." In both cases the majority of people are using these words in a significantly different way, so explanations are necessary to avoid both innocent misunderstandings and intentional misrepresentations. (I use scare quotes just to indicate that the formulations are tentative, not that I'm quoting anyone.)

VS29. For I would certainly prefer, as I study Nature, to announce frankly what is beneficial to all people, even if none agrees with me, rather than to compromise with common opinions, and thus reap the frequent praise of the many. [12]

Quote from Cassius

In that context I would say you want to explain the differing aspects of "Pleasure" as fully as possible in understandable everyday English without use of foreign or very technical words.

Agreed. And I think both your and Don's posts could be slightly altered and combined to use just English instead of words like atarxia, aponia, kinetic, katastematic and the like (using such as tranquility/serenity, bodily ease and health, active pursuit of pleasure and lingering/stable enjoyment, etc. – though those might not be the best: just a quick off-the-top-of-my-head).

Anyway, your post really triggered a kind of “Aha!” moment in me – slow and stubborn learner that I am!

(But I still think my pulley metaphor was pretty good … )

Quote from Pacatus

(But I still think my pulley metaphor was pretty good … )

Agreed!

I'm jumping into this late, but in response to Kalosyni 's post about mixed pleasures, I'd like to put in a plug for my current favorite categorization of feelings as being composed of the three aspects of intensity, location and duration (as can be discerned from the PDs).

Examining these aspects helps me to deepen my understanding of pleasure, and to realize that there are innumerable locations where we experience pleasure (big toe, little toe, stomach, thoughts about death, thoughts about previous happy experiences, stimulation of listening to music &c) and that I can maximize my pleasure partly by doing things that maximize the locations and duration of my pleasure. Because of the innumerable locations and potentially overlapping durations, pleasure is, most likely, always "mixed" overall (unless you're a god...). Part of maximizing my pleasure is understanding which locations of pleasure (which some people might refer to as "types" of pleasure) are the most personally satisfying, and in what intensities and durations.

I have a niggling feeling that k&k pleasures have a relationship to these three aspects. But I don't think that these aspects are a defining characteristic of k&k, or vice versa. I'm currently thinking of them as two mental models, and people can utilize whichever is most useful to them, or both. A third mental model is the categories of desires. The three mental models seem to me to work well together, reinforcing one another. But I see all three as well-conceived tools for helping people understand and maximize their pleasure.

Quote from Pacatus

Pleasure and pain are like opposite ends of a rope on a pulley: as one goes up, the other goes down. There is no neutral state.

Every analogy has its issues but yes I like that too, especially if you can fix your attention on the ropes hanging parallel with each other and not worry about the point at which the rope is at the very "top" of the pulley and going neither up nor down.

Just like the analogies with the balance scales, where the sides are exactly balanced and you have to deal with how to label the pointer (or the balance) being precisely even.

This is where I think you have to go back to being clear about your perspective. From the "whole person" perspective I would say that discrete pains and pleasures can "balance each other out" where it's hard to say which of the two is greater. But from the perspective of placing weights representing pleasure on one side, and weights representing pain on the other, you're always measuring discrete feelings.

The pointer of the dial may indicate dead zero in sum, but what you're measuring is always an accumulation of (1) discrete feelings of pleasure against (2) discrete feelings of pain, and you're never placing on the scale "neithers" or "something else" or "neutrals" or "mixeds."

I didn't see Godfrey's post 28 before posting my 29. I think our posts are consistent. A variety of mental models are helpful for unwinding the different perspectives.

Quote from Godfrey

Because of the innumerable locations and potentially overlapping durations, pleasure is, most likely, always "mixed" overall (unless you're a god...).

That's what I have described as the "whole person" perspective -- there are lots of things going on at one time in separate parts of experience, and the end result of looking at them in total is "mixed." But the individual components are like oil and water, they can be stirred together into a mix but they don't merge into something new.

Maybe it could be said, that pleasure is an activity that is connatural to us, as the healthy functioning of the mind and body and the awareness thereof. The more we reduce and eliminate pain, the easier it will be for our natural wealth to sprout from within us, in the form of continuous pleasure.