Is pleasure as the natural goal of life falsifiable?

    Further, the goal of life is not "the removal of pain" because "the goal of life" is defined by the philosophers to be that ultimate end for which you do everything else. Again, see Torquatus' narrative: (IX. I will start then in the manner approved by the author of the system himself, by settling what are the essence and qualities of the thing that is the object of our inquiry; not that I suppose you to be ignorant of it, but because this is the logical method of procedure. We are inquiring, then, what is the final and ultimate Good, which as all philosophers are agreed must be of such a nature as to be the End to which all other things are means, while it is not itself a means to anything else. This Epicurus finds in pleasure; pleasure he holds to be the Chief Good, pain the Chief Evil.)


    You do not "remove pain" as the ultimate goal unless you want to go ahead and die, because the only way to be ultimately sure to experience no further pain is to die. If removal of all pain is your goal, then die, as I gather Marcus Aurelius (or was it someone else?) said to or about the Christians.


    In the Epicurean view you "remove pain" in order to experience pleasure. Pleasure is the ultimate goal that you pursue, and which you calculate toward in making all decisions, up to the point when you die. You don't calculate all decisions against achieving total absence of pain unless you want to go ahead and die, or wish you had never been born, both of which Epicurus expressly ridicules in the letter to Menoeceus.

    Quote from Cassius

    Not shouting at you here but this gives me another opportunity to get out the soapbox:

    No worries at all. I am here to learn and as a student, so if ever my arguments have misunderstandings or seem like I am preaching them, please let me know or share the teachings!


    I will have to read over your following posts in response to me (real life works keeps me busy and slow to read and respond) but I did want to clarify that I was not implying ataraxia to be the goal as set by Epicurus. My current understanding is that it is more of a "fruit" that comes from following the tree of pleasure and Epicurean teachings.


    A nice potential side benefit if you will,

    Quote from A_Gardner

    My current understanding is that it is more of a "fruit" that comes from following the tree of pleasure and Epicurean teachings.

    Yes, a fruit, or a side benefit, or just one of many other aspects of how pleasure can be enjoyed in life. Most certainly not some special state, the achievement of which everything in life, and every other goal in life, is subordinate.


    Once again it's a matter of whether the term is being used as normal people might use it. I have no issues with it in a broad or loose way, in regular conversation, or even in a technical sense if someone wants to define the best life as a jar of beans in which every last pain bean has been removed and replaced with a pleasure bean (which is what I think "the limit of pleasure" really was intended to reference). But the problem is the sense in which it is batted around in much discussion of Epicurus by professional commentators, as the be-all and end-all of life, which gives rise to the kind of question you ask such as:


    "How can I do X if it will be disturbing?"


    The answer to which, I would suggest, is just the way Epicurus said, that you sometimes choose pain (even the pain of disturbance) in order to achieve a greater PLEASURE. If there were no greater way to look at pleasure than "absence of disturbance" then I would agree, and why would you ever get out of bed in the morning at all?


    And if someone says "But I have to get out of bed because if i don't go to work I'll be disturbed even more!" Then I would say to them "If 'being calm and undisturbed' is the best way you can think of to spend your 75 years on earth, I feel very sorry for you. You are surely a natural-born Stoic."

    As long as we're soapboxing...


    I feel I should stand up for ataraxia in the face of Cassius's withering attack...

    Although it may end up that we're not as far apart as it may at first seem since that seems to end up being the case on many occasions in the past. Even so...


    Starting at the beginning, let me address a couple of A_Gardner 's points and then Cassius 's posts.

    Quote from A_Gardner

    an argument against propping up pleasure as the only good in life, is that it can lead to more states of psychological unrest

    No question. And Epicurus addresses this exact thing, especially in the letter to Menoikeus, in the lines about "we don't mean endless drinking parties and town festivals..." Epicurus would agree that not all pleasure should be chosen.

    Quote from A_Gardner

    pleasure is never a guaranteed and we often faces forms of hardship just as much if not more than pleasure, no matter how we may try to mitigate the pain and amplify the pleasure

    This is where I start my advocacy for ataraxia or tranquility or calm or whatever pleasurable, stable state of mental equilibrium you want to use to translate the Greek. Epicurus is well aware we'll meet hardship. That's exactly why he advocates strengthening a quiet, calm, anxiety-free mind. That's the only pleasure we can be sure of under all circumstances - including being on the rack (although I have to agree with Emily Austin that he might be overselling here just a tad). Nonetheless, equanimity/tranquility/ataraxia is available at all times, even under duress and trying circumstances. But more on that below.

    Quote from A_Gardner

    Can it be argued here that ataraxia is more difficult to obtain/ maintain when faced under the duress of pain?

    Of course, it's difficult. Epicurus writes to "Meditate day and night then on this and similar things by yourself as well as together with those like yourself." It's not a one and done. It takes work! That doesn't mean it's impossible.

    Quote from Cassius

    Of COURSE pleasure is not guaranteed, and OF COURSE we should feel psychological unrest if we run into obstacles to pleasure that we can do something about, which is the case of many or most of them. Should we just crawl into a hole and die and say "Oh me oh my I could have been so happy today but it's raining, and the noise outside is loud, and I have a headache which I could fix with an aspirin but i don't want to take it."

    I don't agree at all that "we should feel psychological unrest if we run into obstacles to pleasure that we can do something about." Yes, we can identify obstacles that we can do something about, but we need not feel "psychological unrest." I would much rather meet obstacles clear-eyed with a calm mind and assess the evidence before me that way than to feel "unrest." And the "crawl into a hole and die" is not the opposite of feeling "psychological unrest." That simply defeatism. IF we can cultivate ataraxia, we have a much better chance of making a good choice to remove, move around, or avoid the "obstacle to pleasure" than we would if we get anxious, feel "psychological unrest" or get agitated or fearful. But let's move on...

    Quote from Cassius

    Same answer as to absence of disturbance. If you wake up to find that you have fallen asleep on railroad tracks, or that there's a tornado bearing down on your house, you better hope that you disturbed! You better hope you are not "tranquil" or so "calm" that you can't muster every bit of excitement and energy and determination and even anxiety that you can muster, and get to safety as quickly as you can!

    If I wake up "asleep on railroad tracks" or with "a tornado bearing down on (my) house" I may feel a sense of urgency but I hope I'm not "disturbed." To me, that sounds like being overwhelmed and distressed and having a mind overcome by indecision and fear. I hope I wouldn't be like that. I would hope I have cultivated enough capacity for ataraxia that I can assess the situation clear-headed, make good decisions for the safety of myself and my family, and help calm others and get everyone to a safe place to ride out the storm.

    You seem to be equating ataraxia/tranquility/calm/etc. with passiveness and being a doormat or being somehow lazy or complacent. I don't get that at all. I see ataraxia as the calm center of the hurricane. Things may be swirling around you, but your mind is calm, collected, able to assess evidence clearly.

    You seem to also be equating ataraxia with apatheia which is a Stoic virtue. That's the opposite of feeling emotions (per LSJ - see link). I don't get that all either.

    This is one of the reasons I enjoyed Emily Austin's book so much. Her constant refrain of the freedom from anxiety allowing us to better enjoy the necessary and extravagant pleasures struck a chord with me. That is exactly my thoughts on ataraxia in Epicurus' philosophy.

    Quote from Cassius

    That's the problem with defining tranquility and ataraxia as the goal of life. They AREN'T. Epicurus said it correctly over and over, the goal is PLEASURE, and in the service of pleasure, which any normal human being knows requires work to obtain, you sometime accept and even choose and welcome pain, if it helps you achieve greater pleasure.

    Tranquility / ataraxia are not the "goal of life" but Epicurus stresses over and over the importance of freedom from disturbance in the mind and "pain in the body" (I have a problem with this kind of translation of aponia, but we'll leave that for another time.) There's no getting around that in the texts. And, yes, PLEASURE is the goal, and tranquility is pleasure, freedom from anxiety is pleasure, but it is pleasure that is always available to us which is why Epicurus places such importance on it - NOT exclusionary importance as the ONLY pleasure we should pursue but of significant and paramount importance to give us the possibility of the best pleasurable life possible in addition to all the other pleasures we can experience. To my reading, your Torquatus excerpt proves my point:

    Quote from Torquatus from "On Ends" (Rackham)

    XII. The truth of the position that pleasure is the ultimate good will most readily appear from the following illustration. Let us imagine a man living in the continuous enjoyment of numerous and vivid pleasures alike of body and of mind, undisturbed either by the presence or by the prospect of pain: what possible state of existence could we describe as being more excellent or more desirable? One so situated must possess in the first place a strength of mind that is proof against all fear of death or of pain; he will know that death means complete unconsciousness, and that pain is generally light if long and short if strong, so that its intensity is compensated by brief duration and its continuance by diminishing severity. Let such a man moreover have no dread of any supernatural power; let him never suffer the pleasures of the past to fade away, but constantly renew their enjoyment in recollection, and his lot will be one which will not admit of further improvement.

    That "strength of mind that is proof against all fear of death or of pain" is exactly my understanding of what ataraxia *is* - and Torquatus places it "in the first place."

    Quote

    A life spent sleeping in a cave would certainly be tranquil, but it does not take an Epicurus to see that such a life would admit of a heckofa lot of improvement.

    Again, "a life spent sleeping in a cave" is a straw man. My metaphor of what is meant by ataraxia / tranquility / calm is the picture of a musk ox, facing into the howling winter wind, legs braces, ice forming on its hair and face, knowing the disturbance will eventually pass ("Pain is short...") and it can then go on and paw the snow for luscious plants to eat. (Note: just a metaphor btw. Not saying musk oxen are Epicureans.)


    I continue to "soapbox" that my reading of katastematic pleasures, including ataraxia, are those that arise from within ourselves and that these are the only pleasures in life that we can be confident of at all times. Epicurus includes ataraxia and aponia within the katastematic pleasures. Metrodorus stresses that these are the only ones we can be confident of:

    Quote from Metrodorus

    "Metrodorus, in his book On the Source of Happiness in Ourselves being greater than that which arises from Objects, says: 'What else is the good of the soul but the sound state of the flesh, and the sure hope of its continuance?'"


    Metrodorus in his Timocrates, whose actual words are : "Thus pleasure being conceived both as that species which consists in motion and that which is a state of rest."

    Metrodorus's quote is: νοουμένης δὲ ἡδονῆς τῆς τε κατὰ κίνησιν καὶ τῆς καταστηματικῆς. Right there, again, is κίνησιν (kinēsin) and καταστηματικῆς (katastēmatikēs). The kinetic pleasures arise from our interaction with external stimuli and phenomena. And Metrodorus stresses the importance of both kinds of pleasures, but he also wrote a book entitled "On the Source of Happiness in Ourselves being greater than that which arises from Objects." As Emily Austin writes in her book, if we're stuck in a hospital bed unable to move, the ONLY pleasures we can enjoy are those that arise from within our minds. I would include those pleasant memories within katastematic pleasures along with ataraxia. And we can't enjoy pleasant memories if our minds are disturbed with anxiety, depression, fear, or other painful mental conditions. Ataraxia *is* that calm mind that we have under our control and that is not at the whims of fears and anxiety, running wild in our heads.

    Quote from Don

    I don't agree at all that "we should feel psychological unrest if we run into obstacles to pleasure that we can do something about." Yes, we can identify obstacles that we can do something about, but we need not feel "psychological unrest." I would much rather meet obstacles clear-eyed with a calm mind and assess the evidence before me that way than to feel "unrest."

    Don raised a major question in my untrained mind. The understanding of ataraxia in Epicurean sense in my view is different in nuance to stoics and other schools. Facing a major challenge or a headwind causes us to have a natural reaction: adrenaline, fight/flight instinct etc. In extreme, we do feel perturbed, sad, unsettled or concerned. A stoic take on this would be: "use your jedi mind trick to calm down, none of this matters, because your virtue is not under threat".


    The Epicurean approach (and here I have to stress that I am basing this on the spirit of the philosophy us I understand, rather than any particular passage) here is to accept that we are human and prone to natural reactions; a god-like posture cannot be achieved. Instead, ataraxia is to be achieved by trying not to put yourself in situations that could cause mental pain for the sake of unnatural and unnecessary desires: e.g. politics, power, exceasive wealth.


    The difference is that some pain is unavoidable: an Epicurean would suffer greatly at a loss of a child or a friend and ataraxia is not a goal in this case. A stoic would have to control the suffering by reminding self that virtue is all tgat matters.

    Quote from waterholic

    The difference is that some pain is unavoidable: an Epicurean would suffer greatly at a loss of a child or a friend and ataraxia is not a goal in this case. A stoic would have to control the suffering by reminding self that virtue is all tgat matters.

    And I agree. Philodemus is very clear that people will - and should - feel the bite of grief at the loss of a loved one or feel the bite of anger when purposefully wronged by someone. We are all human with natural human reactions. But he also wrote that an Epicurean will not let those feelings overwhelm themselves. The "strength of mind" allows one to eventually put it all in context, to understand that the loved one no longer exists and does not feel pain, is not separated from them in some afterlife, and that pleasant memories of them can be recalled and enjoyed. In that case, it is not a Stoic indifference to the loved one's passing. It is a clear-eyed acceptance of reality, both the bite of grief and the eventual - maybe even a long time - acceptance of the world as it is. Same way with anger. We feel that bite if we are wronged, not a stoic indifference. But we don't fire off that email in the heat of anger. We make choices with an eventual calm mind that will lead to a pleasurable outcome.

    Quote from waterholic

    ataraxia is to be achieved by trying not to put yourself in situations that could cause mental pain for the sake of unnatural and unnecessary desires: e.g. politics, power, exceasive wealth

    Ataraxia is achieved by working through and internalizing the antidotes to fear and anxiety: death is nothing to us; the gods present no reason to fear them; some things do happen by chance; we *can* make prudent decisions to lead a pleasurable life, even deciding sometimes to undergo painful experiences if they lead eventually to pleasure; we are not constrained by Fate; etc. Ataraxia is a source of pleasure within ourselves available at all times. It's true that we need to be careful about putting ourselves in situations that cause mental pain, but avoiding things does not create ataraxia. We gain ataraxia/ tranquility by applying Epicurus's antidotes - his philosophical medicine - to our fearful, anxiety-ridden minds. Epicureanism is not a philosophy of avoidance or timidness or refusal to engage with the world. It is a philosophy of personal responsibility and embracing the world as it is, not as we wish it to be or not as some kind of obstacle or show for us to demonstrate our superior virtue.

    As Don said at the start I don't think he and i are far apart at all.


    We are in agreement that ataraxia / tranqulity is not THE goal that supercedes all others, and that is virtually the entire thrust of my point.


    What i think is perhaps worth talking about further is this point which I am not sure i have seen Don make before:

    Quote from Don

    but it is pleasure that is always available to us


    Quote from Don

    I continue to "soapbox" that my reading of katastematic pleasures, including ataraxia, are those that arise from within ourselves and that these are the only pleasures in life that we can be confident of at all times.


    Frankly that is a new assertion to me and i am not sure that I am aware of textual citations to support it, nor do i think it is obvious that this is true. Are not examples such as waterholic referenced, such as grief at the death of a child, not an example of why that is not "always" available, or even appropriate?


    If there is any difference between Don and I it is that as he says, I want to banish every last drop of any implication of "passivity" or "acceptance of things which could be changed" as a connotation of "ataraxia" or "tranquility." I perceive Don to be= focusing on the "strength of mind" aspect with which I surely agree.


    "Strength of mind" is certainly something I would always cultivate and hope to have, and arguably might be always availeble, but as to whether the word "tranquility" is a term that we should cultivate so as to have in every situation, i see that as a horse of a different stripe.


    And in the end that is a large part of what we are talking about here: the best word to describe what we think Epicurus would be describing as highly valuable. "Strength of mind" - absolutely yes ----- but that is not the primary definition of tranquility as I understand the use of the word.


    Strength of mind to keep one's mind focused on what needs to be done at all times - even in times of peril - is surely a top priority of Epicurus. But is "calmness" a complete synonym for that? I would not say so.


    I know the Brits like to "keep calm and carry on" but that slogan has never impressed me as the best way to look at things. The "stiff upper lip" seems to go along with Stoicism to me.

    Aside from this cite which indicates something other than "calmness" (can you sing along a glorious triumph-song calmly?) , is there not another about the wise man WILL cry out while on the rack?


    Quote

    VS47. I have anticipated thee, Fortune, and I have closed off every one of your devious entrances. And we will not give ourselves up as captives, to thee or to any other circumstance; but when it is time for us to go, spitting contempt on life and on those who cling to it maundering, we will leave from life singing aloud a glorious triumph-song on how nicely we lived.


    Here it is from Diogenes Laertius:


    Quote

    And even if the wise man be put on the rack, he is happy. Only the wise man will show gratitude, and will constantly speak well of his friends alike in their presence and their absence. Yet when he is on the rack, then he will cry out and lament.


    So there is my explicit license from the texts: When I am on the rack I will not "keep calm and carry on" like nothing significant is happening! ;)

    Quote

    Quote

    And even if the wise man be put on the rack, he is happy (eudaimonia) Only the wise man will show gratitude, and will constantly speak well of his friends alike in their presence and their absence. Yet when he is on the rack, then he will cry out and lament.


    So there is my explicit license from the texts: When I am on the rack I will not "keep calm and carry on" like nothing significant is happening!

    I'll see your underlined text and raise your another ;) Heading off to work, so don't take silence for anything other than being unable to get to the forum before this evening.

    We are not done, my friend ^^

    No we are not done at all, but in the meantime Don has inspired another thread:


    Thread
    Five Doses That Trump Four Every Time - The "Five-Part Cure"
    [Edit: Originally posted as "Six-Part" Cure, consolidated to five for reasons stated in post 16 below.]

    My issues with the tetrapharmokon have been frequently stated. What would I suggest is a much better summary that is better documented in the texts? Instead of the "four-part cure" I think we can look to a much better-stated "Six-part cure" as stated by Torquatus in "On Ends" (which means it was taken from the best handbooks available in about 50 BC by Cicero, who also had access to the…
    Cassius

    In the spirit of "not being done" and to not further hijack this thread (Sorry, waterholic !), I have created a new thread for the discussion of whether we can be more confident in katastematic pleasure rather than kinetic pleasure...

    Thread
    Confidence in Katastematic Pleasure
    This thread grows out of another thread, specifically my "soapboxing" posts that were a response to @A_Gardner and @Cassius where I "took a stand for ataraxia."
    For those who don't want too much review, my primary contentions were:
    1. Epicurus advocates strengthening a quiet, calm, anxiety-free mind.
    2. Equanimity/tranquility/ataraxia is available at all times, even under duress and trying circumstances.
    3. IF we can cultivate ataraxia, we have a much better chance of making a good choice to remove,
    …
    Don