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

So it would seem that what's important to discuss and work with is pleasure/pain, and not "the good," "a good," or "good." But it's going too far to say that pleasure is not a good or to separate pleasure and good. And there's a context in which it's important to parse good/a good/the good, but that's peripheral to a functional understanding of Epicurean philosophy. Is this the conclusion we're reaching?

I think I like where Godfrey is going.

I'm wondering if we're (me included) of we're getting the technical/philosophical meaning of "good" and the colloquial/everyday meaning of good conflated.

I'm starting to think that within the philosophical debates going on among Platonist, Aristotelian, Epicureans, Cynics, Stoics, et al., that there was a set of traits or phenomena that were under discussion as to which one was the one "to which all others point": Pleasure, Courage, Virtue, Practical wisdom, Contemplation, Piety, etc. The debate seems to then have been which of these were the telos/summum bonum, making the others means to that literal end. Epicurus clearly came down on the side of pleasure, making all the others subordinate. Those are the "goods" of which, according to the Epicurean school, pleasure is the telos/"highest good." I may even have to go back and research what those things were called as a group. It may not even be "goods."

The colloquial use of the adjective "good" - as in describing anything as "this is good" - is predicated on its producing pleasure: "all pleasure is 'good'" at least to the Epicureans. The other schools would not consent to that characterization I'm sure. It appears that what is good is contextual.

Quote from Godfrey

And there's a context in which it's important to parse good/a good/the good, but that's peripheral to a functional understanding of Epicurean philosophy. Is this the conclusion we're reaching?

I would agree with that, and would say it would be a good idea to state the context where it's appropriate: something like - "when we find ourselves in the company of ivory-tower intellectuals, or in those whom the ivory-tower intellectuals have corrupted into thinking that such debates are critical to happy living."

Unfortunately, given the world we live in and our educational and religious background, that happens a lot, so it's a necessary skill set for many of us.

Paper: The concept of the good (tagathon) in philosophy before Plato

https://philarchive.org/archive/PACTCO-8v1

In taking a look again at Cicero:

Quote from Cicero, on ends, 1.42

42 "Pleasure and pain moreover supply the motives of desire and of avoidance, and the springs of conduct generally. This being so, it clearly follows that actions are right and praiseworthy only as being a means to the attainment of a life of pleasure. But that which is not itself a means to anything else, but to which all else is a means, is what the Greeks term the Telos, the highest, ultimate or final Good. It must therefore be admitted that the Chief Good is to live agreeably.

"Those who place the Chief Good in virtue alone are beguiled by the glamour of a name, and do not understand the true demands of nature. If they will consent to listen to Epicurus, they will be delivered from the grossest error. Your school dilates on the transcendent beauty of the virtues; but were they not productive of pleasure, who would deem them either praiseworthy or desirable?

So, the "highest good" = the Chief Good = summum bonum "highest or ultimate good" = Latin for telos τέλος "completion, maturity, accomplishment, fulfillment, perfection, consummation;result, product; end; boundary, border, extremity; supreme power" = tagathon ταγαθον, literally "the good"

The Chief Good is a category unto itself. It is "that which is not itself a means to anything else, but to which all else is a means."

So the discussion was about determining what was the end point of All human action, what should humans base their actions on. For Epicurus, it was clearly pleasure if you wanted to live "agreeably." For Stoics, it was virtue; but Epicurus (via Cicero via "Torquatus") says they are "beguiled...on the transcendent beauty of the virtues; but were they not productive of pleasure, who would deem them either praiseworthy or desirable?"

So, candidates for the telos/Chief Good were things like virtue, pleasure, wisdom. This is a select subset of traits or phenomena that could serve as the prime foundation for all choices and rejections. For a Stoic, virtue should be the foundation of this.

This category of candidates for Chief Good is NOT the category of every "good thing" that produces pleasure. That's a whole separate thing.

Quote from Don

So, candidates for the telos/Chief Good were things like virtue, pleasure, wisdom. This is a select subset of traits or phenomena that could serve as the prime foundation for all choices and rejections. For a Stoic, virtue should be the foundation of this.

1 - And another candidate then and now would be "religion" or law of god.

2 - This is the point I come back to a lot when people express disappointment that there is not more "technique" or "therapy" preserved in Epicurean writing. It appears to me that the major concern of Epicurus and the key philosophical battle is not over "how to have a good time" but instead first establishing the foundation for all choice and avoidance in the first place. Both are important, but you never get to questions of how to pursue pleasure of you don't establish pleasure to be the goal in the first place. And that question was and still is the most controversial of them all.

The modern stoics want to totally gloss over and fudge that question, and we should make sure never to fall for the trap of sympathizing with them, because this is the key issue. Do you live for a "true world" beyond the senses, or for this one?

Quote from Cassius

1 - And another candidate then and now would be "religion" or law of god.

Agreed. Let's call that one Piety.

Quote from Cassius

2. ...you never get to questions of how to pursue pleasure of you don't establish pleasure to be the goal in the first place

Agreed, but we have to remember we have so few texts left. Epicurus undoubtedly addressed some of the "techniques" and therapy issues in other lost works, especially in reading the titles of some of those works. He hints at things like this when we writes about the "endless string of drunken parties and town festivals" not being conducive to living a pleasant life.

Quote from Todd

Yes. I said this before too. The Good, The Chief Good, The End, Telos...these are all not the same things as goods.

LOL! Have we been talking past each other all along? (i.e., Have I been missing your point all along or simply misunderstanding?)

Quote from Todd

There are 2 relevant concepts:

Pleasure (aka The Good, The End, Telos)

goods

I have not seen anyone arguing that there is overlap between those 2 categories

Thanks.

So, here's my (current) thinking:

1. The Good/ The End/ Telos / Summum bonum for Epicureans is pleasure.
2. I think this is correct, i.e., makes the most coherent argument.
3. There are a limited number of candidates in answer to "What is The Good?" Other philosophies have different choices, but, to Epicureans, all other candidates are means to the end of pleasure.
4. Those are all in one category.
5. Pleasure is then the criteria (the yardstick, the canon) by which we determine if something is to be considered a good thing or a bad thing from a human perspective.
6. However, we use reason, with the criteria in 5, to determine what good things are conducive to living pleasurably.

Reserving the right to extend and revise my remarks

Does this list move us closer together, Todd ?

Quote from Don

There are a limited number of candidates in answer to "What is The Good?" Other philosophies have different choices, but, to Epicureans, all other candidates are means to the end of pleasure.

I would probably say ".....but, to Epicureans, all other candidates are means to the end of pleasure mistaken, to say the least!

Quote

XIII. Those who place the Chief Good in virtue alone are beguiled by the glamour of a name, and do not understand the true demands of nature. If they will consent to listen to Epicurus, they will be delivered from the grossest error.

Quote from Todd

I've also been trying to avoid The Good, etc. because I don't think that is even an Epicurean concept.

The concept predates Epicurus, but he was more than willing to weigh in on the controversy/ argument by using that specific term, ταγαθον "the good." It seems to me that Epicurus acknowledged the debate and felt he could swoop in with the only solution that made any sense. I believe that he believed there was indeed ONE thing to which all else points and it IS pleasure. (Epicurus drops the mic, walks off stage.)

I think you have to establish pleasure as "the good" before you start to use it as your criteria. Otherwise, it's just an assertion. By establishing pleasure as that to which all else points, you've set an end point - a goal - on which one should stay focused.

Quote from Todd

But then IMO, it follows from there that you can't claim that the yardstick is also one of the things being measured (goods). Maybe that is just me being pedantic.

A close parallel with this, and I don't think this is a pedantic point :

Extending further on Don's sentence and adopting some Dewitticisms wording:

Quote

Pleasure is then the criteria (the yardstick, the canon) by which we determine if something is to be considered a good thing or a bad thing from a human perspective.

More broadly, the yardstick of desirability is feeling, of which there are two (pleasure and pain) so just as "pleasure" is one way to look at the yardstick, so is "pain."

The point we are making is that it is important to realize that the yardstick is not the same as the thing being measured. The tool of precision is not the same as the stone of the wall.

When viewed as a tool of precision, it is shockingly insufficient, and in fact naive, to consider "absence of pain" to be a full description of the best way of life or an ultimate experience in life.

And that would explain why PD3 refers to absence of pain as "the limit of quantity of pleasure" rather than the ultimate good or anything suggesting a particular experience.

PD3, and that whole "absence of pain" discussion, is geared toward the type of discussion we are having now, it's not a suggestion to perfect new methods of anesthesia.

Quote from Todd

Maybe the transition to Latin was where it all started to go wrong.

I think that could be said for a lot of things

Quote from Todd

Pleasure just is. Attaching other labels to it doesn't make it more impressive.

I think I would argue in the other direction (just thinking out loud...don't hold me to this): everything we think of as good, we ultimately consider good because it produces pleasure.

But there are schools and people who say pleasure can lead you astray from a happy, fulfilling life, therefore it must be repressed, avoided, or rejected outright. Establishing it as the goal - that to which all else points - short circuits that argument.