I’ll admit I do not think this fits. A drink is just another pleasure within the meal, not the thing that gives all the other pleasures their order and security. This makes established pleasures sound like an optional side item.
In my analogy from yesterday (over in this post), individual active pleasures are like bricks. Each one is genuinely good, but no single pleasure – or even a random pile of pleasures – automatically produces a complete good life.
Stable pleasure is like the completed building: the secure condition created when pleasures are arranged intelligently through prudence and friendship.
I’ll admit I do not think this fits. A drink is just another pleasure within the meal, not the thing that gives all the other pleasures their order and security. This makes established pleasures sound like an optional side item.
My analogy may not work for everyone...I was thinking about it this way:
If you were invited over to someone's house for dinner, and they served you a full dinner, but did not serve anything at all to drink with the dinner (no water, no lemonade, no wine, no nothing, etc.) then the meal would be lacking in something -- your total pleasure would be incomplete. Whether or not the meal is simple or extravagant is irrelevant, because there is still something else needed...and the pleasure of the meal would be "mixed" with a sense of discomfort. And I think that this is the point of PD10, and also PD12.
Hoping this is the right thread.
I listened to a very interesting interview: https://www.worldsciencefestival.com/videos/whats-b…rything-you-do/
The interview of Brian Greene with Sheldon Solomon on his career studying: What's Behind Everything We Do. In a nutshell Sheldon says it is anxiety over the fear of death. And that anxiety is behind everything we do, and can affect important decisions that affect others. At one point he mentions Lucretius. I posted a comment to the interview as follows: "When Dr. Solomon mentioned Lucretius, he was referring to the Roman philosopher's long poem titled De Rerum Natura. This work was dedicated to the Greek philosopher Epicurus who taught that we should not fear gods, not fear death, know that pleasure in life is easy to attain, and that pain and suffering can be managed easily. This was called the Tetrapharmikon, or four cures. Solomon said overcoming death anxiety “by the thorough contemplation of reality.” I think an inquiry into the teaching of Epicurus may very well teach us how to contemplate reality. A better personal life is possible, and who know how far that might go if Epicurus was taught widely."
The link above may or may not work for you. If it doesn't you can find it on Youtube. P.S. I listened on 1.5x speed. Love to hear any comments on the interview.
Fullnes of Pleasure makes sense for me. It is not about avoiding all pain but to fullfill necessary bodily and mental desires. An unfullfilled necessary desire is a pain.
Only problem could be vulnerability ?
The vessel doesn‘t stay full, would a small pain destroy the fullness ?
When getting old we become more ill, is there fullness than even possible ?
Otherwise yes pain is a signal and motivation to get back to the fullness of Pleasure and maybe thats a reason why Epicurus advices to reduce the desires to natural/necessary, there is then a smaller vessel to fill or it will become easier/faster full.
Interesting is the role of mental pleasure vs short bodily in this subject. Epicurus memory if philosophy with friends made is whole life to a happy life in his last days. How full / complete was his Pleasure in his last days ? Overshadowed his Eudaimonia his bodily pains ? How long is that possible ? I think it supports the enduring of pain and resilience.
When getting old we become more ill, is there fullness than even possible ?
Absolutely! 
Thanks for this reply Matteng because when I see your reaction I see that there is more I need to say -
Fullnes of Pleasure makes sense for me. It is not about avoiding all pain but to fullfill necessary bodily and mental desires. An unfullfilled necessary desire is a pain.
Only problem could be vulnerability ?
The vessel doesn‘t stay full, would a small pain destroy the fullness ?When getting old we become more ill, is there fullness than even possible ?
Otherwise yes pain is a signal and motivation to get back to the fullness of Pleasure and maybe thats a reason why Epicurus advices to reduce the desires to natural/necessary, there is then a smaller vessel to fill or it will become easier/faster full.
Interesting is the role of mental pleasure vs short bodily in this subject. Epicurus memory if philosophy with friends made is whole life to a happy life in his last days. How full / complete was his Pleasure in his last days ? Overshadowed his Eudaimonia his bodily pains ? How long is that possible ? I think it supports the enduring of pain and resilience.
I read the way you are applying fullness and I think I can see exactly why you are thinking in that direction.
But I don't think that's the direction to think at all!
If you'll dig with us back into the Platonic origin of the "full/complete" problem, what I'd like to suggest is that you're using fullness/completeness in a very different way.
And again I can see why you would - your saying it just highlights to me that there is a problem here.
There's no single definition of a "full life." Or a "complete life." Does someone who lives his or her whole life and never have children fail to have a "complete" or " full" life? You could ask that question about any pleasure -- and the answer is pretty obviously -- NO - Nature doesn't have a checklist that you must experience each and every possible pleasure in order to have a complete life.
Plato's objection was not that there's a master list of Pleasures that has to be reached in order to be complete. His objection was that NO SET of pleasures can even begin to be thought of as complete because they are always "IN PROGRESS" -- they are a process not a destination.
So I don't think at all that we should think that "COMPLETENESS OR FULLNESS OF PLEASURE" means that there is a list that is to be fulfilled.
And certainly NOT a list that is composed of only "necessary" desires. Or of any list of necessary desires. Food and water and air are "necessary" -- but for how long? Must they be obtained for a certain number of years before one's life is "complete"? Again I would say no.
The natural and necessary classification is a tool for allowing you to predict the likely pain/pleasure result of any choice. It's not a list that says "if you subsist on bread and water for ten years your life is complete" or anything approaching that.
So thank you for posting that and describing your thought process.. It should have been obvious to me that someone would think this and that it needed to be "headed off at the pass."
I don't think fullness or completeness of pleasure has anything to do with the natural/necessary classification, or with any list of pleasures whatsoever.
The point that pleasure can be complete applies both to any individual pleasure, and to the concept of pleasure as a whole. The boundary of pleasure is pain, just as the boundary of an atom is the void. Pleasure is not "incomplete" any more than an atom is incomplete.
The last part of PDO3 - "Wherever pleasure is present, as long as it is there, there is neither pain of body, nor of mind, nor of both at once."
From the perspective of questioning whether pleasure is being vs becoming, Pleasure is always being (complete), and not becoming (in progress and therefore incomplete) I'd say the same thing about pain.
It apppears to me from the Platonic background that the whole being/becoming vs complete/incomplete analysis is just a Platonic word game that - once understood - should be rejected.
This is being discussed most intensely in the Kelly Arenson book thread, so as we read further into that hopefully we'll either confirm this viewpoint or refine it in a different direction.
In fact as another thought in the same direction I would pose the following questions to anyone - whether or not they have read the first word of the Arenson book.
Probably the most famous reference to the term "fullness of pleasure" comes from the Oinoanda inscription.
I think people are interpreting it as if it as reference to having "lived a 'full' life" or somehow "having experienced 'full' pleasure."
Questions:
I don't recall that line of reasoning anywhere - and I suspect it's not there for the reasons cited to Matteng.
It's far more likely that any reference to fullness/completeness came about as a reference to the Platonic challenge that pleasure cannot be full or complete, which is the background that Arenson is excavating from Philebus and The Republic.
A related question on the issue of fullness-as-a-bucket-list (which I am rejecting) would be:
- How many years must a person live to have lived a "full life"? If Epicurus had died at 25, which for the sake of argument had allowed him to get his school started, would it still be appropriate to say he had lived a "full" life? A bucket-list-view-of-fullness would seem to require a certain minimum number of years, but I think most of us would agree that does not make good sense.
I brought up Maslow's heirarchy of needs which then led to my commenting that perhaps Epicurus had reached a sense of fulfilling his "self-actualization" through his study of physics
What if we reframed Maslow’s “needs” (re the chart below) as Epicurean desires? Which might fall under the category of (1) "natural and necessary,” which (if any) under (2) “natural but not necessary,” and which (if any) under (3) “unnatural” (Emily Austin’s “corrosive”)?
Just as a quick pass, I’d put the first three of Maslow’s levels under (1). I think I’d relegate at least the “status” part of the fourth level to (3).
And what if we simply replaced “self-acualization” and "fulfillment" with eudaimonia?
Really just thinking “out loud” here …
Pacatus Nice comparison, see it the same. Life as obvious basis than health and the peak Eudaimonia.
Is it needed that the Cup „must“ be full ? I think we not only fill the cup with Pleasure but also and that can be an important point: adjust the size of the cup ?
Reflecting desires, gratitude and other Epicurean Virtues often aim at limiting or realistically measure the desires and with it the limit of the cup.
So now maybe I am full of Pleasure but later when I am hungry do I lose the full cup of Pleasure ?
What is more stable is ataraxia or satisfaction with the one life and when this is my limit of the cup than it would be full even when little pains/ desires come back. Than Epicurus had a complete full cup of Pleasure in his last days.
But maybe that would go in the Stoic direction and neglect the body. And maybe it is ok that the cup is not always full and one is not a full Sage ( another topic could be, does one need to be an Epicurean Sage for full Pleasure ? Again a Stoic Idea ? But for what than should someone aim at wisdom / Sagehood ? )
You are asking great questions Matteng and each of them require detailed response. This is quick start:
Is it needed that the Cup „must“ be full ? I think we not only fill the cup with Pleasure but also and that can be an important point: adjust the size of the cup ?
No, nothing requires you to get the most pleasure you can out of life. Nature allows you free will and you can sit in a cave and eat bread and water for the rest of your life if you choose to. But most normal people would agree that that is not the highest and best pleasure, nor is it free from painful repercussions for most people - which means for most people it is far from the best use of your time.
As to the size of the cup, here I think you need to be careful of the limits of the analogy. What does the cup represent here but "the full extent of your life"" - the "cup of life" so to speak. You can work to make your life longer or shorter or deeper or shallower, and in general you should work to make it longer and deeper. But in the end "your cup" is "your cup" and the question of whether it is full applies to all sizes and types of vessels.
Reflecting desires, gratitude and other Epicurean Virtues often aim at limiting or realistically measure the desires and with it the limit of the cup.
I always kick back at the idea of limiting "the desires" in general without being clear that what you are targeting to limit are those desires that bring more pain than pleasure because they cannot be satisfied. It would make little sense to target limiting your desire for "bread and water so long as you live" because that desires is relatively easy to satisfy and highly unlikely to bring more pain than pleasure. The limitation of desire issue is focused on the question of making sure you don't pursue things that will bring more pain than pleasure.
So now maybe I am full of Pleasure but later when I am hungry do I lose the full cup of Pleasure ?
Just like Epicurus in his dying days you are not experiencing 100% pleasure. But what you do not lose is happiness, because happiness is viewed as having more reason for joy than for vexation - having a positive balance of pleasures over pains, as Epicurus did at that time, and as even the wise man on the wrack can have because he can consider his past experiences and current thinking and upcoming relief from pain (through death if neccessary) as offsetting his present torture.
What is more stable is ataraxia or satisfaction with the one life and when this is my limit of the cup than it would be full even when little pains/ desires come back. Than Epicurus had a complete full cup of Pleasure in his last days.
Stability is not the goal or the overriding factor! The supreme good is pleasure. Yes you would prefer your pleasure to be stable, but even if not stable you prefer great pleasure accompanied by some instability over small pleasure that is absolutely stable. Epicurus did not have stability of complete pleasure in his last days but he had the more pleasures than pains even while both were fluctuating.
But maybe that would go in the Stoic direction and neglect the body. And maybe it is ok that the cup is not always full and one is not a full Sage ( another topic could be, does one need to be an Epicurean Sage for full Pleasure ? Again a Stoic Idea ? But for what than should someone aim at wisdom / Sagehood ? )
Seems to me that when people today in English use the word sage, and especially when they capitalize it, they are looking for a type of perfection in wisdom that Epicurus never focused on promoting. In fact he said that prudence is more important than philosophy, and friendship is the greatest tool for happiness, and neither of those require classification as "Sage." That's more of a Stoic concept, and even they viewed their "sages" as being more rare than a phoenix. The whole idea of looking for "full pleasure" is a very subtle concept which people are interpreting as an ideal of perfection and then quickly converting that ideal of perfection into the worst enemy that practical happiness based on pleasures outweighing pains ever had.
