Perspectives On "Proving" That Pleasure is "The Good"

I admit that I like the "babies and animal" argument as well as "it's as obvious as snow is cold, fire is hot."

However, I always come back to why anyone does anything. For Stoics, being virtuous - or being perceived as acting for virtue - provides them with a sense of satisfaction. To me, satisfaction = pleasure. For Christians, believing in an afterlife appears to bring them joy. Joy = pleasure. For Buddhists, ridding oneself of desires brings contentment. Contentment = pleasure. And so on down the line. To me, there's no escaping it.

Quote from Todd

Pleasure could be defined as what anyone chooses.

The same could be said about desire. I find it to be extremely reductive and almost gimmicky to reduce a lot of other ways of life and decisions on the grounds of "Oh you were still pursuing pleasure or acting on your desires; you just didn't know it." Because if that were truly the case, then the affected person would simply keep to their ways and would stay unswayed.

Quote from Todd

Pleasure could be defined as what anyone chooses.

What anyone chooses that does not cause mental or physical pain (in the widest sense)?

Quote from Charles

I find it to be extremely reductive and almost gimmicky to reduce a lot of other ways of life and decisions on the grounds of "Oh you were still pursuing pleasure

Ah! But not all pleasure should be chosen. Do those pleasures I have listed lead to a life of secure pleasure or can they lead to anxiety about the future or how one is perceived by others?

Quote from Charles

Oh you were still pursuing pleasure or acting on your desires; you just didn't know it."

I would also say that they *know* it, they just can't admit it to themselves because "pleasure" is seen as a "four letter word."

Quote from Don

Do those pleasures I have listed lead to a life of secure pleasure [...]

They would certainly believe so. Though in some respects, maybe they have a point, not in their rhetoric attached to such lifestyles, but acting in according to their desires in their own non-Epicurean way.

I don't believe pleasure can be isolated as a sole concept in the philosophy without an extremely vague definition attached to it, let alone through comparison. Instead, it should be tied to ethics and the concepts in the PD's and such. Perhaps it's less "happiness and contentment through my free will and contemplation" and more "pleasure is the active and passive sensation I experience from my study of nature and rejection of the supernatural on top of making choices and avoidances according to my desires."

Todd, I am sensing perhaps a bit of resistence toward pleasure? And maybwe there could something deeper going on in your resistence? Possibly you may be uncertain if you can trust your inner sense of pleasure?

We subjectively know what pleasure is, just as honey is sweet. And as Epicureans, we remember that we don't always choose for immediate pleasure, but we sometimes make choices that will lead to greater pleasure in the future. This means that we at times will be using trial and error and will observe the results from our choices -- and evaluate which choices were best -- and then we learn. For example: I used to drink more beer and wine, but then as I applied "choices and avoidances" then I could see that I actually had more pleasure by abstaining or only drinking small quanties. And also this points to both pleasure and pain are considered in choices and avoidances. What we have left of Epicurus' teachings is sometimes not as clear about all of this, but over time I believe we can develop the philosophy so that it is much easier to explain and discuss.

Plus from my perspective, Epicurus's philosophy is based on making skillful choices as to what to act upon and what to reject as to live a pleasurable life.

Quote from Charles

Perhaps it's less "happiness and contentment through my free will and contemplation" and more "pleasure is the active and passive sensation I experience from my study of nature and rejection of the supernatural on top of making choices and avoidances according to my desires."

I'm reminded of a weekly zoom call we had where Mathitis Kipouros spoke about a peer of his where his [camotero's] attempt to teach him about the limits and variety of pleasures was met with utter confusion. His peer inadvertently spoke like an Epicurean and presumably needed Epicurean advice but the gap could not be bridged because of their different understanding of pleasure.

Quote from Charles

Though in some respects, maybe they have a point, not in their rhetoric attached to such lifestyles, but acting in according to their desires in their own non-Epicurean way.

Well, Epicurus said it's better to follow the religious beliefs of the hoi polloi than be subject to determinism.

Quote from Charles

Perhaps it's less "happiness and contentment through my free will and contemplation" and more "pleasure is the active and passive sensation I experience from my study of nature and rejection of the supernatural on top of making choices and avoidances according to my desires."

Ok, I think I can see where you're going.

I'd add that Epicurus only allowed for two primary categories of feelings: pleasure and pain. All our sensations are supposed to fall into one of those (with obvious gradations and variations).

I'm approaching all of this from the perspective of proselytization. The issue is with the definition of pleasure itself, so, as to avoid a word-game, it makes more sense to ground it into something purely Epicurean to avoid a lot of the "baggage" the word will inevitably face. A similar example would be the word "indifference" in the context of Stoicism. It takes on its own meaning with its own contextual points and definitions tied to source material.

I realize this may be going a bit off topic and is simultaneously opening a large can of worms, but it might be better to recuperate the idea of pleasure rather than building a theory of pleasure. By this, when we say "pleasure" we refer to choices and avoidances, prudence, the categorization of desires, the rose problem, etc. In doing so, our usage and treatment in such a different context might encourage others to reconsider their understanding of pleasure, leading to an easier comprehension. Consider it the wyrmwood before the honey, in this case, if you will.

Quote from Todd

So everyone is always choosing pleasure, in the broad sense that we always choose the alternative we imagine will be most satisfactory.

I can't completely agree with this, since you used the word "everyone". Some people do make choices out of how they want to appear to others, so as to gain respect. And then if that is to impress those who chose according to "God's will" , then this is based on idealistic virtue not on pleasurable outcomes.

Edit note: I should have said: so as to try to gain respect or in an attempt to gain respect

Quote from Charles

ground it into something purely Epicurean

Hmmm... So that's the issue then. To be "purely Epicurean" hints at there being some "essence" of Epicurus's philosophy whereas Epicurus tried to use nature (and human nature) as it is found to serve as the foundation. There are definitely technical, specific terms used in Epicureanism like prolepsis, but "pleasure" is meant to cast a wide net and to be grounded in the natural feeling of pleasure vs pain. Epicurus's whole thing was to expand the definition in contrast to the Cyrenaics and Platonists.

To narrowly define pleasure or to constrain it would be a step in the wrong direction I believe.

Quote from Todd

choose the alternative we imagine will be most satisfactory

Also, the word "satisfactory" doesn't fully encompass pleasure, happiness, sweetness in life. I have to contemplate and consider that these are my goals, otherwise the value system of "appearances" (status, wealth, high fashion, etc) can distract me from living the best life given my means.

Quote from Kalosyni

Some people do make choices out of how they want to appear to others, so as to gain respect

And why do they want to do that? What is their motivation?

Quote from Don

And why do they want to do that? What is their motivation?

Fear and lack of true friendship.

I sure am glad we split this off into a new thread!