the areas of active pain in my body have been limited to specific places and to specific times. Most of the time, most parts of my body are not feeling pain (even if my elbow hurts all the time).
Bryan , What would happen if you said this about pleasure:
...the areas of active pleasure in my body have been limited to specific places and to specific times. Most of the time, most parts of my body are not feeling [stimulative] pleasure.
Thoughts?
...the areas of active pleasure in my body have been limited to specific places and to specific times. Most of the time, most parts of my body are not feeling [stimulative] pleasure.
My response to that would be that your view of pleasure is incomplete. If you are alive and aware of anything at all, what you are aware of is pleasure or pain. Stimulative pleasure is only one type of pleasure, and all other experiences of life which are not stimulative and not painful are also pleasure.
So when you say "Most of the time, most parts of my body are not feeling [stimulative] pleasure," what you are saying is that most of the time most parts of your body are not feeling either pain or stimulative pleasure. But you have not completed the description: it is right and proper to label what those parts of your body *are* feeling at those times as pleasure.
...the areas of active pleasure in my body have been limited to specific places and to specific times. Most of the time, most parts of my body are not feeling [stimulative] pleasure.
That is true. Which is fortunate-- because such pleasure is only felt as a relief from pain.
This is also true: We feel total pleasure in most parts of our body, most of the time.
That is true. Which is fortunate-- because such pleasure is only felt as a relief from pain.
This is also true: We feel total pleasure in most parts of our body, most of the time.
I don't think of smelling a rose as a relief from pain, nor is eating dessert!
Right now I am thinking of feeling as an "on" or "off" switch - when the light of awareness is "on" then I am either feeling pleasure or pain.
Also, here is a new idea (whether or not it is in alignment with what others think is correct:
"Pleasure" is the absence of mental pain (angst and agitation). Whenever we are free from angst and agitation (even if there is a feeling of pain in the physical body) we can call this state "pleasure".
Just trying this out, for now (but will probably come up with something else soon, lol 
).
Pleasure" is the absence of mental pain (angst and agitation). Whenever we are free from angst and agitation (even if there is a feeling of pain in the physical body) we can call this state "pleasure".
I say this based on the story of Epicurus' letter right before his death, in which he was in pain but was happy because of the memory of his friend.
I don't think of smelling a rose as a relief from pain, nor is eating dessert!
These are variations that we can experience, but do either increase our pleasure?
Trying out this idea:
-- Perhaps there are multiple definitions of pleasure which are all correct, and it is all about common sense and making sure that we choose those things which will have a good outcome.
And further these thoughts come to mind:
When we have hunger or thirst, it is a pleasure to have that pain removed.
The enjoyment of stimulating pleasures of the five senses easily arises over and over again in the course of our everyday normal lives.
When we notice a moment that is free from both mental and physical pain, we can feel gratitude and reflect upon that moment as being a pleasure.
Happy memories both need to be made and remembered.
Friends (and family) are one of the most important ways of creating pleasurable moments.
There is no need to live in angst or agitation because these painful mental feelings have remedies.
I love that Substack is being embraced here. I use Substack for news and social/philosophical commentary. I see some Stoic ones, like Massimo Pigliucci, and I saw that Hiram has one as well for his brand of Epicureanism. Greek philosophy is making a comeback.
In the same era of Epicurus lived Demetrius I Poliorcetes = "The Besieger" the son of Antigonus I Monophthalmus and Stratonice. He was a Macedonian Greek military leader, and finally king of Macedon (294–288 BC). He belonged to the Antigonid dynasty and was its first member to rule Macedonia and Athens.
When Demetrius removed Cassander's aristocrats that ruled Athens in 307 BC, many Athenians were grateful to have Demetrius as their more lenient master compared to Cassander's men. Epicurus moved back to Athens just a year later.
It seems likely that Epicurus also favored this political turn, as control by Demetrius I Poliorcetes may well have made an environment more conducive to start the community Epicurus wanted to establish -- scholars seem generally allow that he fostered a favorable intellectual climate compared to Cassander. Demetrius also used his "Besieging" know-how to build up-to-date fortifications for Athens... And also, a glance as his personality will show that he just probably would have looked upon Epicurus' philosophy with casual approbation.
But politics is complicated and it seems that 13 years later Athens rebelled against him, unsuccessfully, but it was at that point in 294 BC that I think Epicurus probably did his famous rationing.
