Mental pleasure/pain more intense and longer lasting than physical pleasure/pain

Braintobeing - I am driving so this is brief but others can expand. Epicurus advised exactly what you are doing. The issue is the definition of pleasure, and Epicurus used a much more sweeping definition of pleasure than just immediate sensory stimulation. Your longer term goals are just as much under pleasure (because you find them desirable) than immediate satisfaction.

I also want to spend more time on what Tau Phi is saying but I suspect I differ with (or would say differently) what I am reading as "more or less" pleasure and pain. I think the weighing of relative pleasures and pains is essential to Epicurus. That's what allows us to agree that putting aside short term pleasures, or even accepting pains, is worthwhile in terms of the ultimate greater pleasure and lesser pain.

But the big issue here is the definition of pleasure, and Epicurus says life is desirable and that if the experience of life that we are talking about is not a pain, then whatever the experience is and no matter how removed it may be from immediate bodily sensory stimulation, it still deserves to be called pleasure.

This is readily observable in reading Cicero's on ends. What Cicero objected to is that everyone calls agreeable immediate bodily stimulation "pleasure," but Epicurus innovated and extended the word pleasure to all non-painful experiences of life.

That extension is what Cicero objected to but it is how the ancients were reading Epicurus when he wrote PD03 and "By pleasure we mean the absence of plain."

Quote from BrainToBeing

So, in summary, is this then the core issue of the Epicurean? If so, i guess I'm not an Epicurean.

Firstly, there's much more to Epicurean philosophy than that. Secondly, study existing texts before deciding if you see yourself as an Epicurean or not. I'm just one of many Internet people and nothing I say is in any way authoritative. Please keep in mind I'm not strictly an Epicurean myself. I'm here as this philosophy is close to my heart and I find exchanging ideas with people gathered in this community very beneficial. Lastly, by wise pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain I don't mean to get as much sex, drugs and rock'n'roll as possible. I mean life choices that make my life worth living for myself.

Quote from BrainToBeing

I deny pleasure where pursuing it would not be constructive (e.g. coffee and a glass of wine at dinner are my only drugs).

Can I ask why you chose to deny yourself such pleasures? Watching sunsets, staring at bonfires, listening to music and many other pleasures are not constructive and yet I don't know anyone who would willingly deny themselves such activities. And please don't take it as a personal attack. I'm genuinely curious as I have a feeling I might be misunderstanding what you're saying.

Quote from BrainToBeing

I voluntarily accept pain where it comes necessarily as a consequence of doing something constructive (e.g. vigorous exercise entails some pain).

I absolutely agree with this. I'm starting to suspect what you call 'something constructive' I call 'pleasure' and we might be on the same page of the same book just written in different language.

Anyway, welcome to the forum BrainToBeing and thank you for your contribution so far. I find it very interesting.

Quote from BrainToBeing

I'm more interested in doing something constructive as my core driver.

And "doing something constructive" gives you pleasure, right?

Quote from BrainToBeing

I deny pleasure where pursuing it would not be constructive (e.g. coffee and a glass of wine at dinner are my only drugs). I voluntarily accept pain where it comes necessarily as a consequence of doing something constructive (e.g. vigorous exercise entails some pain).

"And because pleasure is the fundamental and inborn good, this is why not every pleasure is seized and we pass by many pleasures when greater unpleasant things were to result for us as a result: and we think many pains better than pleasures whenever greater pleasure were to follow for a longer time by patiently abiding the pain." -Epicurus, letter to Menoikeus

I don't know. You might be an Epicurean after all.

Quote from TauPhi

Can I ask why you chose to deny yourself such pleasures?

I think constantly in terms of "we" rather than "me". And, in the consideration of "we" I need to ask who would pay the price if I think only of me. So, for example, when practicing medicine I very clearly knew the agenda was to do what was appropriate for the patient, and not just beneficial to my pleasure. I could have made a great deal more money and lived a much simpler life if I approached medicine for my "pleasure". And, yes, I realize that "down in the weeds" of "pleasure" is the idea that self-sacrifice may be interpreted as personal "pleasure". However, I can certainly tell you that doing what was right, rather than what was pleasurable, was not pleasure in many, many situations (long story with many elements).

Quote from Don

You might be an Epicurean after all.

Maybe. I'm not the Epicurean scholar that you all are. I'm just trying to figure out how we all live successfully on this planet, have the planet do well under our tutelage, and have the future evolve constructively (in the broad perspective of that word).

Quote from BrainToBeing

I think constantly in terms of "we" rather than "me". And, in the consideration of "we" I need to ask who would pay the price if I think only of me.

I've been thinking lately about modern civilization and the idea of "progress". Are we happier now than before we had all the modern inventions and modern medicine? Why are teens commiting suicide and shooters going to malls and killing people? Perhaps "progress" has not been made in the right places. People fear death and then try everything to prolong life, even though their quality of life is very unsatisfactory (if they cannot do everyday things and must have an attendent wash and help them toilet). Modern medicine is failing us, in that we live long but then are plagued by dementia.

So perhaps BrainToBeing your deep question is likely: "Who will take care of society and all the things that are required, including the self-sacrifice of leaders and workers, and all who do the work to make things "better"? In response I say: all over the world you can see that the political realm is full of corruption. And people are polarized between "religious-conservative "right-wrong" vs. democratic freedoms.

So I say the the "we" is not working. The "we" is corrupt. And we don't currently have a solution for this problem.

People ignore the fact that if they act in a manner in which others are harmed, then there will be bad consequences. The consequences I speak of are multifaceted. Epicurean philosophy reminds us of these consequences -- in which my long-term well-being will have a poor outcome whenever I cause harm to others - because by human nature we all have a drive to survive and stand up for ourselves when we are harmed (except for some who are so downtrodden that they cannot stand up for themselves). What ever we do will turn around and come back to us in some manner - and we can see that at play in current world events.

Quote from BrainToBeing

And, yes, I realize that "down in the weeds" of "pleasure" is the idea that self-sacrifice may be interpreted as personal "pleasure". However, I can certainly tell you that doing what was right, rather than what was pleasurable, was not pleasure in many, many situations (long story with many elements).

From my perspective, that is actually the point. Don't dismiss those weeds too lightly. Are you able or willing to admit to yourself that doing what you felt was "right" was pleasurable to you. Feeling that you did the correct action *was* pleasurable. If you want to say that doing what you felt was right brought you a sense of satisfaction, I can see that. But satisfaction is a type of pleasure in long run.

Yes Don's post get's right to the point. If you are the type of person who values the longer-term "satisfaction" that comes from your actions, then what you are talking about is just a different name for the feeling that you get from that work.

The real heart of the matter is whether the Platonists and others were right to label only agreeable immediate sensory stimulation as pleasure and disagreeable immediate sensory stimulation as pain. Epicurus goes right to the heart of the matter and says that it is the *feeling* that is the ultimate way to decide, not your "intellectual" assessment of it by some abstract logical standard.

And it is equally important to say that we aren't playing simple word games with "pleasure." Sometimes it can sound like that because we have first-world attitudes privileges that lead us to think that rearranging our kitchens and our recipes to produce maximum eating pleasure is all we need to worry about.

Epicurus was a *philosopher*, not a cook or a medical doctor. The big issues that drive the world in his time and in ours are the ultimate questions of whether (1) there are supernatural gods, (2) whether there is life after death with reward or punishment, (3) whether there are logical absolute ideals, or (4) whether there is only what Nature gives us directly by which we should live.

Epicurus held that if we want to deal with reality then (1), (2), and (3) are out of the question, as they simply do not exist given the nature of the universe. That leaves us with (4) which resolves down to "feeling" and it ultimately makes sense to realize that there are really only two types of feelings, those that are agreeable (Pleasure) and those that are disagreeable (Pain).

We're talking in this thread in very precise medical terms as if Epicurus were standing over our shoulder pointing out specific things to do and not to do, even though he lived 2000 years ago and had no idea of the technology we have and the way we live today. Certainly he had specific pieces of advice to the effect that seeking unlimited power, unlimited money, unlimited fame, or to live forever are unattainable and will be damaging if we make them our goals. We can derive a lot of useful "life coach" information from what he had to say.

But if you skip over the ultimate philosophical war in favor of the clinical details then you never understand the big picture. The big picture is FIRST that these false guides of life do not exist. That in itself is a very heavy lift for most people. The flag that Epicurus raises is indeed called "Pleasure" but that's a generic term for agreeable mental and bodily feelings, and those do exist, and they stand in the same rank and compete with the alternatives of supernatural gods and ideal forms and "logic" and "virtue" and things like that which either do not exist or are at best tools for something else.

In the end it's very possible to reconcile "satisfaction" and "worthwhile things" etc etc with "pleasure," and if you spend time with Epicurus you will see how he does that.

What's *NOT* possible to reconcile with Epicurus is supernatural gods, and ideal forms, and essences and logical abstractions and any other sort of absolutist things or principles that can tell us what to do.

The title of Lucretius' Poem is generally translated as "The Nature of Things" -- but Rolphe Humphries translates it as "The Way Things Are" and I'd say also something like "The Nature of Reality" are more indicative of what is really at stake.

Atoms and void and all the theories that come from them give us ways to come to terms with reality, and that's the first and most important goal. Once you orient yourself to the reality that the only guide you have is the physical pleasure and pain that Nature gives you, it's relatively easy to come up with a rational pleasure and pain analysis of all the rest. But the nature of reality is the place to start -- the ethics follow from that.

Quote from Don

From my perspective, that is actually the point. Don't dismiss those weeds too lightly. Are you able or willing to admit to yourself that doing what you felt was "right" was pleasurable to you. Feeling that you did the correct action *was* pleasurable. If you want to say that doing what you felt was right brought you a sense of satisfaction, I can see that. But satisfaction is a type of pleasure in long run.

Don : And that is an example of choosing a particular mental pleasure as outweighing any pains that might be involved. Does the Stoic feel displeasure/dissatisfaction – or displeased/disgusted with herself – in following her virtue-ideals? I sincerely doubt it. That does not mean that she might not experience great suffering in the instance (even unto death).

But (as I think has already been mentioned) the articulable “why” for such choices may come after an innate (evolutionary) urge to which we are responding – based on our survival needs as largely social animals.

In the social context, it is difficult to maximize the chances of living a life of wellbeing without some sort of social compact to neither harm nor be harmed. We can argue over whether such choices are (or “should be”) made out of long-term personal interest or some categorically-commanded virtue-ideal (or some evolutionarily embedded feeling-response we might call conscience) – but Epicureanism is certainly (to my view) affirming of policies that would come under the headings of social justice or social wellbeing (which does not necessarily imply some simplistic utilitarian formula). And that means making choices that take into account the wellbeing of others (not of our particular group) – and a weighing of choices, just as in a personal hedonic calculus. Also, some goods are public goods (e.g., public health efforts to prevent the spread of infectious disease), such that denying them to someone else may well cause me harm/ill-being (e.g., I , or people I care about, do get infected).

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

Of course, it’s easy to sling judgments back and forth:

“You’re not enough of a virtuous person if you think that way! You’re just selfish – even when you’re doing something for others!”

“And you’re deluded if you think you get no – at least a priori – satisfaction from your virtue claims! When was the last time you berated yourself for being so good?!”

“What do you mean I’m evolutionarily wired for certain virtues? I have free will!”

“And what about sadists?! And masochists?!”

And on and on and on …

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

Myself when young did eagerly frequent

Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument

About it and about: but evermore

Came out by the same door where in I went.

– Edward FitzGerald: The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám; Fifth Edition, Quatrain XXVII

O, now to let those arguments go by

as I hear the call of a gentler band:

I offer wine and laughter ere we die –

and, if you need, a free and open hand.

Quote from Kalosyni

The "we" is corrupt. And we don't currently have a solution for this problem.

Thanks Kalosyni. We are an evolved species, but the evolution we came from now propagates old behavior patterns.

In my mind, actually we do have potential solutions. The core issue, IMO, is that we come from a predator lineage. In fact, we stand as life's current apex predator. Yet, that is coming back to roost in this era. It is the foundation of our angst. However, we can also see that there are those who rise above the predator mindset. Women do it more than men. There are those who don't "root for my team" on the weekend football game but rather take care of "the family" (used metaphorically). In this era, that transition is typically not appreciated for its meaning, and certainly seen as "not playing ball" by those who are tribal. Yet, the transition has started. We will learn to understand where the "not tribal" mindset comes from, and how to nourish it. AI might even help us in this regard, if we don't first use it to propagate tribalism.

There is reason to hope. And, even if there wasn't. I prefer to be part of the solution and not part of the problem.

One thing that is commonly missed is that EP is a philosophy of personal responsibility. In a world in which there is no supernatural god, no afterlife, no absolute forms or essences, how do we avoid nihilism and live our lives? This is the context in which pleasure and pain are the guides. Some people choose abstract ideas such as virtue for a guide, but what is that other than a mental construct? Some people choose sex, drugs and R&R, but I question whether this is being aware of their pain or simply papering over it.

Pleasure and pain are innate, biological tools for guidance. To properly use them one must delve into the nuances of their own awareness and come to terms with what they find, keeping in mind that there is no neutral state. Often what appears to be neutral, when examined, contains pains and pleasures that we've just never noticed. That's where the real work takes place.

Quote from BrainToBeing

I think constantly in terms of "we" rather than "me". And, in the consideration of "we" I need to ask who would pay the price if I think only of me. So, for example, when practicing medicine I very clearly knew the agenda was to do what was appropriate for the patient, and not just beneficial to my pleasure.

So, are you really thinking in terms of “we” – which, by definition, also includes you (because “we” is relational)? Or are you saying that you think “constantly” only of others – and not yourself at all? (Rhetorical question: I don’t think you’re saying that at all.)

Does caring for others by practicing medicine (as opposed to practicing medicine just to enrich yourself) cause you to feel generally dissatisfied with your life? Does it displease you? I doubt it. Do mutually self-affirming and caring (loving) relationships bother you because the “we” includes you and your pleasure, as well as that of the other? I doubt it. Do you enjoy loving the people you love in those “we” relationships? I suspect so.

Epicurus extolled friendship. Friendship is a “we” relation. I think it’s foolish (and delusive) to imagine we can extend that “we relation” without bounds. Even if we’re thinking globally, we still act locally (and no one has a god’s-eye “view from nowhere”) – or else we likely end up flailing impotently. You may have a concern for all humanity, but you treat one patient at a time. But I also think it’s foolish to try to limit our concerns (for some of the “public goods” reasons I alluded to) to our own little band. So, we do recognize that we are necessarily and inescapably part of larger social “we” relations. And we inescapably end up weighing the effects of our choices on our nearer “we’s” relative to the larger “we’s”. (In your profession, maybe the word “triage” is sometimes applicable?)

Although ideals and other abstractions (like “virtue”) can be seductive, all our choices are always concrete:

“When it comes to shaping one’s personal behavior, all the rules of morality, as precise as they may be, remain abstract in the face of the infinite complexity of the concrete.”

—Hans Urs von Balthasar, Roman Catholic theologian

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

Am I virtuous? I don’t know. Am I less kind and compassionate in my behavior than when I was steeped in idealist Christian/Kantian virtue-morality? It doesn’t seem so. Am I less concerned about “social justice” issues? I don’t think so (though, in my elder years, I am less directly active). Do I care if anyone thinks I’m not sufficiently virtuous/righteous/good? Not really. I just don’t think in those terms anymore. Do I “feel good” about my choices after (Hemingway)? Sometimes yes, sometimes no; when “no,” I try to ask why and amend – and do better next time. But that “feeling good” just is pleasure. Call it conscience if you wish; the feeling is the guide, the rationales (important as they are) come after.

Like TauPhi , I’m just a guy on the internet drawing on Epicurean philosophy – as best I understand it – to inform my own choices. I may understand it differently tomorrow. In the end, Epicurus – like all the Hellenistic schools – thought of philosophy as a process of therapy, not just an intellectual exercise.

frank1syl

Can we talk about pleasure versus displeasure in making lists? (Okay, bad joke.)

Every action you list, but for shunning by her family, is up to her – including refusing to argue back, even if that means walking away each and every time. (I’ve been in some very fraught and emotionally debilitating situations that I had to leave; hopefully, I would handle them better today – generally by being willing to leave sooner.) But I want to point out that 2. involves a question of self-honesty or pretense, and potentially damaging cognitive dissonance. So I don’t think that feigning accord is a sustainable option for anyone’s wellbeing.

With that said, I don’t see how the pleasure of staying with what you’ve implied are, essentially, an emotionally abusive family could possibly outweigh the pain – unless they desist from their behavior when Sally is around.

Quote from Pacatus

So, are you really thinking in terms of “we” – which, by definition, also includes you (because “we” is relational)? Or are you saying that you think “constantly” only of others – and not yourself at all?

"We" definitely includes me. In my view, the journey is partly about discovering and honing the balance that comes from respect - self and others. I am in the process of creating some YouTube videos on "self" - how we develop it, how we can repair it. And in those perspectives I discuss (or soon will discuss) how the "self-other" dynamic is established, and repaired where that is necessary. Too much self builds narcissism. To much other builds neurosis. And in the middle is balance - a "we" that includes you and me. (Intentionally, there is no link and no self-advocacy here. This is about "we", not "me".)

Cheers