Tranquility v Pleasure

Hiram I remember there was a thread where I quoted Torquatus that pleasure is the removal of pain, and there is no state between pleasure and pain. If ataraxia is not opposed to pleasure, is it pleasure? Is it the removal of pain? For stoics, ataraxia is not the removal of pain but numbness. The pain is simly not felt, but it exists.

And if ataraxia is the removal of pain, it also means pleasure. And if ataraxia and pleasure are the same, why is there a need for these two words to exist across Epicurean texts? Why not use only either pleasure or ataraxia alone?

Mike, the most coherent explanation is that ataraxia is not itself a full description of a state-- it is merely the absence of disturbing conditions, fears, and the like, which would impede pleasure. And yes, if there's no pain, there's pleasure, for sure!

What has happened is that modern understandings of the word tranquility, instead of "without disturbance", imply a very passive state of muted pleasure, so people have gotten confused and think that's the goal.

There is no such thing as too much pleasure, because then it would be pain, at the moment it is felt to be "too much"... a person will have fluctuating energy levels and intensity levels that will suit them best. Less than that intensity will leave them searching for more, due to remaining pain, and too much intensity of a stimulus will be painful, causing them to back away. It's not a balancing act of pleasure-- it's finding the maximum pleasure point in the action that we want.

Quote from Mike Anyayahan

Hiram I remember there was a thread where I quoted Torquatus that pleasure is the removal of pain, and there is no state between pleasure and pain. If ataraxia is not opposed to pleasure, is it pleasure? Is it the removal of pain? For stoics, ataraxia is not the removal of pain but numbness. The pain is simly not felt, but it exists.

And if ataraxia is the removal of pain, it also means pleasure. And if ataraxia and pleasure are the same, why is there a need for these two words to exist across Epicurean texts? Why not use only either pleasure or ataraxia alone?

Numbness is APATHEIA. Apathy. This is a Stoic ideal.

Ataraxia isn't numb, it means no-perturbations, and if we follow Epicurus' logic that all sentience is either pleasurable or painful, ataraxia would be pleasurable.

I think the reason why Epicurus used ataraxia is because he was arguing that we can not experience pure pleasure for as long as we experience perturbations like fear of death or of the gods, or unlimited desires. So one of the existential and psychological tasks of an Epicurean is to remove these.

(Julien de la Mettrie adds unwarranted remorse to the list of perturbations we should remove--in other words, feeling religious guilt for things that we should have no guilt about)

Quote from Mike Anyayahan

I remember there was a thread where I quoted Torquatus that pleasure is the removal of pain, and there is no state between pleasure and pain.

I agree with what Elayne said, and would say this too:

In order to avoid confusion I think it is necessary to back up to decide what it is we are talking about - which is "feeling" - which is an experience (on pleasure and pain as experiences I would refer to the Wentham article.

We can discuss the question of how long a feeling continues to exist, but as for me, I do not think that the word "state" is particularly useful, because there is no bright line between a feeling of pleasure that lasts for a second or a minute or an hour or whatever period of time.

As to there being only two feelings, pleasure and pain, the most direct statement on that which I have found is in Diogenes Laertius:

"

The internal sensations they say are two, pleasure and pain, which occur to every living creature, and the one is akin to nature and the other alien: by means of these two choice and avoidance are determined. Of investigations some concern actual things, others mere words. This is a brief summary of the division of their philosophy and their views on the criterion of truth."

And so I don't think it is good terminology necessarily to say that there is something "between" pleasure and pain as much as it would to say something like "all feelings are either pleasurable or painful" which makes the point that there are no other types of feeling that don't fit under one of the two labels.

Remember the basic point that "Death is nothing to us, for that which is dissolved is without sensation; and that which lacks sensation is nothing to us" so anything that is not felt/experienced as pleasure or pain is "nothing to us" - which would cover anything that anyone wants to allege is neither painful or pleasurable to us.

Quote from Elayne

There is no such thing as too much pleasure, because then it would be pain, at the moment it is felt to be "too much"... a person will have fluctuating energy levels and intensity levels that will suit them best. Less than that intensity will leave them searching for more, due to remaining pain,

Elayne Thanks a lot. This is a crystal-clear explanation which finally removes my confusion. I see.

Quote from Hiram

Numbness is APATHEIA. Apathy. This is a Stoic ideal.

Ataraxia isn't numb, it means no-perturbations, and if we follow Epicurus' logic that all sentience is either pleasurable or painful, ataraxia would be pleasurable.

Ok. That answers my question whether or not ataraxia is pleasure.

Quote from Cassius

And so I don't think it is good terminology necessarily to say that there is something "between" pleasure and pain as much as it would to say something like "all feelings are either pleasurable or painful" which makes the point that there are no other types of feeling that don't fit under one of the two labels.

Yes Cassius. This is already clear to me. That's actually how I understand it as I used to quote Torquatus about it.