The Axiology of Pain and Pleasure (are they intrinsic good/bad ? )

Quote from Don

There are innumerable "feelings" and emotions within those two categories, but every sensation is either pleasurable or painful. That seems to be a very insightful discovery, and seems to be born out by current psychological affective research... but we're not going down that road

This statement helps clarify the difference in perspective, because i do not see this as a "discovery" at all -- it's not like he "observed" or "put his finger on" some previously overlooked characteristic that is inherent in certain activities that makes them agreeable. He "decided" or "defined" all agreeable things (as determined by mental and bodily feelings / reactions at any moment) would be called "pleasure" (or hedone or voluptas or whatever language) and all disagreeable ones would be called "pain."

Epicurus could have chosen any number of words / divisions that he liked ( e.g. he could have called some "noble pleasures" or "worthy pleasures") and so established some kind of arbitrary hierarchy within the term "pleasure." But he instead said (decided / defined) "I need one word to describe all that I feel to be agreeable" and I shall call it "pleasure." i would say that is a "philosophical choice" which makes for a "worldview" rather than a "discovery." Many other people - Cicero and essentially all philosophers besides Epicurus - choose to assign the labeling differently. Rather than calling the standard non-stimulated condition of life by the term "pleasure," they assess that standard condition differently, and they call it "neutral" or some other in-between word suggesting a less positive assessment.

Quote from Don

Finally, I don't think Epicurus is necessarily redefining "virtue". It seems to me that "virtue" to Epicurus still means generally "to do what society feels is the excellent/noble thing to do" but for Epicurus we do it because it brings us pleasure, both as the feeling and leading to a more pleasurable life (i.e., PD05) Virtue has no intrinsic value *other than* to serve as an instrument leading to pleasure. And now pleasure is widely defined!

Now that one I doubt we'll be able to bridge very easily, because I cannot see Epicurus holding a "virtue" (such as wisdom) to be "what society feels is the excellent/noble thing to do." I would think that Epicurus would have deferred to "society" in defining the attributes of "virtue" exactly as much as he deferred to "society" in defining the attributes of a "god."

But yes regardless of where we end up this discussion is extremely helpful toward bringing clarity to the questions!

Quote from Cassius

This statement helps clarify the difference in perspective, because i do not see this as a "discovery" at all

Okay, I think I'll agree that "discovery" is maybe not the right word to use in this case. His "discovery" is definitely a reaction against his contemporary philosophical schools' position on that "neutral state." Maybe assertion? Epicurus asserted that "You're all wrong. There is no 'neutral' state. If you all are going to say there's pleasure, there's pain, and there's some 'neutral' state between them, I'm not okay with that. When we're alive, we feel pleasure and we feel pain. Period." So, that's why he was constrained in the terms he could use within the philosophical discussions taking place at the time. He could have used different words, but his rivals would just then say "Epicurus is just renaming the neutral state." He had to make a hard break with the rival schools and decided to use the words they used to beat them at their own game, so to speak.

Quote from Cassius

Now that one I doubt we'll be able to bridge very easily, because I cannot see Epicurus holding a "virtue" (such as wisdom) to be "what society feels is the excellent/noble thing to do." I would think that Epicurus would have deferred to "society" in defining the attributes of "virtue" exactly as much as he deferred to "society" in defining the attributes of a "god."

I was just trying to go back to the meaning of virtue/arete/virtus of "something that shows/exhibits excellence of character; a person or thing's 'full realization of potential or inherent function'." That "society" inclusion was a clumsy way of putting it. The arete of a knife is if it cuts well. The arete of a human is... well, I guess, fill in the blank depending on the situation?

Quote from Cassius

But yes regardless of where we end up this discussion is extremely helpful toward bringing clarity to the questions!

It is unfortunate that some people are going to see these back-and-forths as uncomfortable or disconcerting but this is the only way we will get to greater clarity.

And more clarify is needed because I think there is a significant number of people who come at Epicurus in a modified-Cicero way.

They understand "pleasure" to mean the equivalent of "sex drugs and rock and roll," and they would like Epicurus to tell them how to experience that feeling all the time.

They understand that there are limits to sex, drugs, and rockandroll specifically, but they hear "pleasure" and they think that Epicurus is going to instruct them in a new experience, hither-to unknown and undiscovered by them, which they will find to be a feeling of stimulation equivalent to sex drugs and rockandroll, but without the "hangover."

So they concentrate on "removing pain" from their life, working toward asceticism, trying to be as "altruistic" and as "good" a person as they can, and they wait and wait for that transcendent moment when in a blinding flash of light they experience this new feeling that does in fact feel as strongly agreeable to them as sex, or drugs, or rockandroll.

Such a moment will never come, but it was never promised.

What was stated instead, is that if you *think* about life correctly (correctly meaning that there are no supernatural gods, platonic "good," or life after death), then you see that "life" allows you to participate in an unlimited number of mental and physical activities which are rewarding in all sorts of ways. With this attitude toward life it is much easier to experience all sorts of agreeable mental and physical activities. You don't have to live under the cloud of thinking that you are being watched by a supernatural god, or that you have to conform to some kind of Platonic ideal, or watch out for punishment or reward after death.

But this attitude toward life and and they way you conduct yourself under its influence is *not* in fact the same experience as continuous sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Those who study Epicurus expecting to find that result will get very disappointed and disillusioned. They will fall back into their old habits of looking for magical stimulative fixes that they think might actually allow them to experience those stimulations constantly.

Looking at your hand as feeling pleasure, when the world tells you that your hand is just sitting there doing nothing, does not magically make your hand feel as if it is being massaged. Looking at your hand or your life that way is more of a paradigm shift. The new paradigm allows you to appreciate it when your hand (or life) is healthy, and makes you realize that it is important for you to take proper actions to maintain that health, because when your hand and life are gone, they are gone forever, and they have no experience at all afterwards. You won't consider non-existence to be terrible, because it's not painful, but it is sure as heck is preferable to be alive and experience the pleasures that are possible to the living.

I think if we don't make this clear then we end up talking past each other like Cicero ignoring what Torquatus was saying to him. Worse, we end up wasting a lot of time that we should otherwise devote to living our lives under the certainty that there are no supernatural gods telling us what to do, and that there is no life after death to cause us to worry about reward or punishment. Once we are sure of those things we don't withdraw into our private gardens as if we are fleeing from pain, but we engage prudently with life according to our circumstances and make the most of it.

So I think these discussions are very helpful to clarify these questions.

Quote from Godfrey

it's possible for pleasures of the prodigal to teach us some of these things. I presume that many of us have stories of pursuing excessive pleasures in our youth, only to begin to discover the limits of our pains and desires in the process.

This can be true depending on the situation, however in some cases there can be irreparable damage/illness caused to the body by some behaviours -- so we need to heed the wise advice of others or we will suffer the consequences.

Quote from Cassius

But this attitude toward life and and they way you conduct yourself under its influence is *not* in fact the same experience as continuous sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Those who study Epicurus expecting to find that result will get very disappointed and disillusioned. They will fall back into their old habits of looking for magical stimulative fixes that they think might actually allow them to experience those stimulations constantly.

PD10: "If the things that produce the pleasures of profligates could dispel the fears of the mind about the phenomena of the sky, and death, and its pains, and also teach the limits of desires (and of pains), we should never have cause to blame them: for they would be filling themselves full, with pleasures from every source, and never have pain of body or mind, which is the evil of life." (Bailey).

It is natural to enjoy pleasures, however there is something within us which has us coming back for more, over and over again...and...many people have a craving for novelty, which we could label "pleasure as variation".

I sat down to breakfast this morning, eating my humble hard boiled egg, and began reading the special flyer for Trader Joe's:

From the flyer: "Putting the Passion Back Into Breakfast - Is your morning routine feeling a little...uninspired? Does your plain granola leave you longing for more?"

For some reason when we indulge our desire for "pleasure as variation" it does not teach us the limits. Instead, we have to think about it and apply reasoning. The desire for "pleasure as variation" has no limit (is endless). This would be one reason why the pleasures of the profligate are considered a "dead-end" (not good). But as for the desire for pleasure as the removal of pain (eating to remove the feeling of hunger) it does have a limit when we pay attention and sense that our stomach is full. An Epicurean enjoys the flavors of the food while also removing the pain of hunger.

VS42: The same span of time embraces both the beginning and the end of the greatest good. Note 42. This is the Norman DeWitt translation from his article “The Summum Bonum Fallacy” in The Classical Weekly, Vol. 44, No. 5 (Dec. 18, 1950), pp. 69-71. The same item is rendered by Epicurus.net as: “The same time produces both the beginning of the greatest good and the dissolution of the evil.” Bailey: “The greatest blessing is created and enjoyed at the same moment.” (This last paragraph is copied directly from the VS Text section of the forum).

This thread may have some over-lapping relevant thoughts (have not yet re-read it):

Thread

Kungi's Natural and Necessary Discussion

ADMIN NOTE: This thread was split off after Post 10 of the "Welcome Kungi" Thread here. The following series of posts were originally post 11 in that thread.

-----



[…]

This is a prime example of confusing pleasures with desires. All pleasures are natural because pleasure/pain is the faculty of feeling. Desires are what need to be discussed in terms of what is natural, necessary, vain &c, not pleasures. I imagine this may sound like nitpicking but I'm increasingly convinced that it's an…

Godfrey

July 24, 2022 at 1:35 PM

Also...thinking...

I wonder if it would be okay or not to create these labels:

-- "pleasure as removal of pain" (eating and drinking to relieve hunger and thirst)

-- "pleasure as variation of sensation" (smelling roses, eating fancy chocolates, etc.)

-- "pleasure as homeostasis" (absense of pain, both in body and mind)

-- "pleasure as pleasant thinking" (learning, memory, gratitude)

Quote from Cassius

What was stated instead, is that if you *think* about life correctly (correctly meaning that there are no supernatural gods, platonic "good," or life after death), then you see that "life" allows you to participate in an unlimited number of mental and physical activities which are rewarding in all sorts of ways. With this attitude toward life it is much easier to experience all sorts of agreeable mental and physical activities.

I think this is entirely correct, and that's why I think the ascetic interpretation of Epicureanism goes almost as far astray as the 'sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll' interpretation. That's also why, at least if you ask me this morning, I think Epicurus would not be opposed to going to the moon if that's your particular desire. (Maybe that's in part because an hour ago I watched a black wolf chase a deer up a river in the wilderness and thought, for not the first time this week, 'I could get killed doing this' at the same time as I thought, 'this is one of the most amazing things I've ever seen.')

To me, once you believe that pleasure is good and that you shouldn't feel ashamed of enjoying your life, and once you free yourself from the idea that death is the worst thing that can happen, some risks for the most sublime and memorable pleasures of life actually become worth it.

I make this joke sometimes that sort of unnerves my friends, which is that if I die, I can at least say 'I've had a good run.' I tend to think Epicurus thinks we choose our pleasures for ourselves (within certain constraints, of course), and he's more interested in clearing our heads of the impediments to pursuing and enjoying the pleasures that give us that feeling of living life largely as we please. And the most significant impediments to doing that are shame, fear, ignorance, limitless desires, and superstition. But maybe I've now come too close to the sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll interpretation.

Quote from Little Rocker

That's also why, at least if you ask me this morning, I think Epicurus would not be opposed to going to the moon if that's your particular desire. (Maybe that's in part because an hour ago I watched a black wolf chase a deer up a river in the wilderness and thought, for not the first time this week, 'I could get killed doing this' at the same time as I thought, 'this is one of the most amazing things I've ever seen.')

Perhaps time to look into wilderness gun use for self-defense against wild animals? (or could you have on hand a stun gun as a last resort?)...just thinking about what kind of options to increase safety amongst wolves and bears.

I was wondering what would happen if something went wrong with a launch on a mission heading to the space station, and it accidently sent the rocket out past the proper earth orbit sending them out into the solar system...and whether or not they are supplied with a pill to take in a worst case scenario (lost in space). And what would the astronauts ponder in such a situation...would they think well at least this will hopefully build on the future knowledge for the space program (as a benefit for future humanity, so that their death was not in vain) or perhaps they too could say to themselves "I've had a good run".

Quote from Little Rocker

I tend to think Epicurus thinks we choose our pleasures for ourselves (within certain constraints, of course), and he's more interested in clearing our heads of the impediments to pursuing and enjoying the pleasures that give us that feeling of living life largely as we please. And the most significant impediments to doing that are shame, fear, ignorance, limitless desires, and superstition. But maybe I've now come too close to the sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll interpretation.

And perhaps everything is refered back to it's over-all affect: do whatever you want if it does not cause you undue physical pain and mental distress (and also keeping to that which is just and prudent concerning others).

These scenarios remind me of the Buddhist saying:

If I were to accidentally fall to my death from a great height, it would be a shame to miss the view on the way down.

That seems very Epicurean to me.

Quote from Kalosyni

And perhaps everything is refered back to it's over-all affect: do whatever you want if it does not cause you undue physical pain and mental distress (and also keeping to that which is just and prudent concerning others).

Yeah, that's the way I think about it--'harmless pleasures' are permitted, when the harm you must avoid concerns others. It seems to me that 'harmless' can include risk and some measure of pain for oneself, so long as it promises or even just might provide an especially exquisite pleasure.

Quote from Kalosyni

And what would the astronauts ponder in such a situation...would they think well at least this will hopefully build on the future knowledge for the space program (as a benefit for future humanity, so that their death was not in vain) or perhaps they too could say to themselves "I've had a good run".

I suppose probably both, but I guess the reason I prefer 'I've had a good run' is that you can say it even if everything fails--if nothing is learned, if no one remembers you did it. It's like the pleasure of the activity is enough without success. That sometimes strikes me as one of the coolest things about Epicurus--pleasure isn't required to produce anything to justify itself. And if you think it does have to produce something, then the pleasure might lose a touch of its luster.

Quote from Kalosyni

Perhaps time to look into wilderness gun use for self-defense against wild animals? (or could you have on hand a stun gun as a last resort?)...just thinking about what kind of options to increase safety amongst wolves and bears.

Ha, yes! I do carry bear spray with me everywhere I go, which is actually more effective than a gun (and a lot lighter than any gun that would take out a bear). That wolf definitely was not interested in me. The most important thing was not getting run over!

Quote from Little Rocker

But maybe I've now come too close to the sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll interpretation.

I suspect the only thing that would possibly hold a time-transported Epicurus back from getting in one of these rockets might be the realization that he is so desperately needed by so many here on earth that he would not want to take the chance of not fulfilling his real "mission." However I would bet that if he thought there were a reasonable chance of coming back to finish his job here, he'd do both

Quote from Kalosyni

undue physical pain and mental distress

Always remembering that "undue" is subjective with the individual person, and not written in stone to be "forced" on everyone except as they themselves make the analysis. Without always including that qualification, what seems like a good idea to the person saying it an easily get changed into a moral imperative for everyone.

Quote from Kalosyni

I was wondering what would happen if something went wrong with a launch on a mission heading to the space station, and it accidently sent the rocket out past the proper earth orbit sending them out into the solar system.

In that case I wholeheartedly recommend you watch a film called 'Aniara'. It's a brilliant sci-fi film dealing with exactly that problem. It's not an optimistic film, though.

Quote from Kalosyni

...and whether or not they are supplied with a pill to take in a worst case scenario (lost in space).

Maybe but I guess talking to each other in a similar fashion would probably be much more satisfying way to deal with a problem like that:
- Hey, Joe. I think we're lost.
- Yeah. You may be right, Matt. Let's open the window to make sure.
- Splendid idea, Joe. It's been a pleasure getting lost with you.
- The pleasure is all mine, Matt.

Quote from Little Rocker

I do carry bear spray with me everywhere I go, which is actually more effective than a gun (and a lot lighter than any gun that would take out a bear).

Oh wow, and oh good!!...and oh thanks because I totally forgot about bear spray, but I need to remember it if I ever go hiking in the wilds (depends on where and if there are bears) no plans currently but I used to hike a lot more back when I lived in Oregon.

Quote from Little Rocker

pleasure isn't required to produce anything to justify itself. And if you think it does have to produce something, then the pleasure might lose a touch of its luster.

Not only lose some luster, but veer into the realm of virtue/duty ethics!