We Need A Game Show With A Lightning Round Question: "Happiness or Pleasure? - Why?"

    This is a joking warning for anyone who attends our zoom sessions in the future. At no fixed time, and no fixed place, someone may ask you without warning:


    "Happiness? Or Pleasure? - Why?


    Maybe we could reduce it to three words: Happiness? Pleasure? Why? But if so, the tone of voice would need to imply the -or - that would be missing, because the "or" is an important part of making the person think about the answer.


    I think those of us who have been here a while will understand why the question arises, what are the implications, and why the answer calls for explanation beyond just "both."


    Shall we see if we have any volunteers to help us all formulate the "best" answers? I am sure that there will be many options to choose from depending on the larger context of any conversation where that would come up. But taking it totally alone and out of any context will be stimulating too.


    The number one goal ought to be clarity rather than worrying about how many words are needed, but in the end, the most pithy answers will no doubt win the prize of emulation as we go forward. And the reward of hearing your answer used in the future by others ought tobe well worth the entry fee.


    So: Happiness or pleasure? - Why? What would Epicurus say?

    Maybe instead of "both" we ought to equate them with each other with "is".

    “If the joys found in nature are crimes, then man’s pleasure and happiness is to be criminal.”

    Thanks 1 Like 3

    Yep that is one direction Charles. I think the point of the exercise would be to differentiate between the terms and to be able to articulate when each term is applicable. I doubt that saying "they are the same" is sufficient; something else is needed to explain their relationship.

    I think this question has come to my mind in this way because of the quote from Seneca we discussed in the last episode of the podcast as to the definition of "friend" and to the word-splitting game of "mice" and "syllables" and "cheese."


    Taking this completely out of context of all our past discussions, it's tempting to equate happiness = pleasure, because both words can be considered to be concepts, and they are concepts that are certainly related. But they can also be considered to be feelings, although the -ness on happiness implies more of a "state" than a discrete sensation.


    If this were not a question of some relevance, we probably would not see all the arguments we see which some insisting that one or the other is the real definition of the goal, which the other is a subsidiary concept. We see Epicurus using different words, so we see him use both "happiness" and "pleasure" in varying contexts. But we also see important texts which seem to make a point of considering "pleasure" as the goal, which other texts can be read to point to "happiness."


    Seneca is clearly right to be concerned about logical hair-splitting, and it is easy to drop back and say that logical hair-splitting is what the debate between "happiness" (or ataraxia or eudaemonia or whatever) vs pleasure is all about.


    But nevertheless there seems to continue to be a sharp debate as to which word is appropriate.


    Is the answer to "Happiness? or Pleasure? Why?" simply:


    "It doesn't matter - you're just wasting time splitting hairs."


    Or for the sake of clarity in talking with people about these issues do we need a concise and clear statement of why two words are being used instead of one?


    If so, what is that concise and clear statement?

    Perhaps we're looking at it the wrong way. Pleasure by most people will either be the virtue of swine or cite Nozick's pleasure machine when confronted with the goal of pleasure as a defining force and factor in life. Regardless, I don't there is a concise and clear statement, at least not yet.

    “If the joys found in nature are crimes, then man’s pleasure and happiness is to be criminal.”

    Thanks 1 Like 1

    Pleasure and happiness are very different. Pleasure can be obtained by an action, however happiness is more like a gift that is passively received.


    And so I can do something that (I know) gives me pleasure – such as sitting in the sunshine drinking tea with my wife – and then after a time (and possibly after a particular action or an event has passed) I can realise that I was/am happy. Happiness cannot be forced. I cannot act so as to force happiness, yet I can do something which will certainly give pleasure. Certain actions may be difficult or stressful (and not necessarily pleasurable) and yet when looking back I can see that I was happy during that time. Certain acts may be difficult at the time and yet retrospectively I may realise that I was experiencing a deep kind of pleasure.


    So we want true pleasure and happiness will follow.

    A: Pleasure

    Why: Happiness is a type of pleasure, whereas pleasure isn't necessarily a type of happiness. It seems to me that pleasure has a pretty specific definition in EP, but happiness is less well defined.

    Riffing on some ideas coming up after reading previous comments.


    Happiness can be an internal story you are using to explain the meaning of the pleasures you are experiencing.


    Yet, happiness is also considered a feeling -- when it is vicerally felt in the the body as an extention of relief or pleasure.


    A happy life is assumed to be a life full of good experiences, and we would assume that there is a great number of pleasurable experiences (both physical and mental) that happen in a happy life.


    Consider the following questions and any likely situations when these questions are asked:

    "Are you happy?"

    "Are you enjoying yourself?"

    "Does this feel good?"


    A happy life can still feel happy even when immediate pleasure isn't occuring, and I think that it really points to "happiness" being mostly an internal story about whether or not we are feeling pleased about the way our life is currently unfolding.


    Is it true that: You can't have a happy life without pleasure, but you could can have pleasure even if you aren't having a happy life?


    It seems that we need both pleasure and happiness.


    We have this from Epicurean Philosophy:

    "Friendship dances around the world, announcing to each of us that we must awaken to happiness." PD 52

    And this PD can work as a visual definition of happiness.

    (visual as in before the internal eyes)


    I dance therefore I am.

    Quote from Kalosyni

    A happy life can still feel happy even when immediate pleasure isn't occuring, and I think that it really points to "happiness" being mostly an internal story about whether or not we are feeling pleased about the way our life is currently unfolding.

    This sounds right, although I would tend to use "state" instead of "story." And this of course leads to the discussion of ataraxia and eudaimonia, and whether they are fancy pleasures which are more important than pleasure, or whether they are subsets of pleasure.


    If I understand correctly, Kalosyni 's quote above is related to Don 's description of a background state of happy homeostasis. I think that that's necessary, but not sufficient, for the fullness of pleasure. Dabbling in prudent extravagance can fill the tank in that regard (referring to one of Cassius 's former illustrations.

    Quote from Godfrey

    If I understand correctly, Kalosyni 's quote above is related to Don 's description of a background state of happy homeostasis.

    Hmmm...I wasn't thinking about homestasis when I wrote my post earlier (and need to go back to see what Don said about that).


    Is there a "recipe" for how to make happiness? (the following things are needed for happiness):


    --Both physical and mental pleasures

    --Assurance of security in the future (basic necessities and safety)

    --Freedom from fear of death and God(s)

    --Physical health


    So...this means that pleasure is easier to get than happiness.


    In fact, I was thinking that the Tetrapharmakos should be this:

    Don't fear God

    Don't worry about death

    Pleasure in life is easy to experience

    Pain in life can be endured through the addition of pleasure

    Me: Pleasure (artfully chosen)


    Host: So, you think the answer is 'pleasure (artfully chosen).' Interesting, and is that your final answer?


    [silence, silence, audience squirms because so much is at stake]


    Me: Yes, that's my best and final answer, at least for today.

    Quote from Kalosyni

    Is it true that: You can't have a happy life without pleasure, but you could can have pleasure even if you aren't having a happy life?

    I think that is a very interesting way of moving the conversation forward.



    Quote from Little Rocker

    Me: Pleasure (artfully chosen)

    Host: So, you think the answer is 'pleasure (artfully chosen).' Interesting, and is that your final answer?

    [silence, silence, audience squirms because so much is at stake]

    Me: Yes, that's my best and final answer, at least for today.

    I sense a spirit of rebelliousness in Little Rocker, the reasons for which I think most all of us feel and share, but which we are still struggling to articulate. ;)


    I don't think this is just a "mouse is a syllable so syllables eat cheese" kind of game. There's something much more significant at stake. It's almost as though over the last two thousand years a "book" has in fact devoured our "cheese," and we're mad (or ought to be) and need to act to get it back!

    Quote

    --Both physical and mental pleasures

    --Assurance of security in the future (basic necessities and safety)

    --Freedom from fear of death and God(s)

    --Physical health

    Looking at this, I'd say physical health and pleasure aren't necessarily necessary for happiness, but mental pleasures are. Now, that would imply that there's a ranking of pleasures involved in happiness. However, I don't subscribe to a ranking of pleasures but to classifications of desires. This leads me to the thought that happiness is, perhaps, a static mental pleasure.

    I "feel" like it would be easy for this thread to go off in all sorts of ways that would make it sound like we are really doing nothing but spinning our wheels for the 1000th time. And I think all of us in this thread have in our minds at least a tentative balance where we find both words to be fully desirable.


    So I "feel" like it would be good to say: Rather than just think about all the possible ways this issue could be taken, we should probably focus on our experiences in dealing with people are have only a superficial knowledge of Epicurus. Sort of the people that Diogenes of Oinanda and Torqatus thought there were talking to when they ended up emphasizing almost the exact words of "a life of happiness is a life of pleasure." I think we all believe that we ourselves can balance these terms, but why is there an issue with other people not understanding that they go hand in hand and are not in conflct? Why do people see a conflict between happiness and pleasure? And what's the most direct way to get them to see that they are mistaken in presuming that there is a conflict? What's the key to unwinding that perceived discomfort?


    I think I remember Torquatus implying that the issue was that people who don't know how to pursue pleasure end up getting burned with lots of pain? But is the issue deeper, and that people that that "pleasure" is sinful or wrong? And that they somehow find "happiness" more socially acceptable?

    Quote from Godfrey

    This leads me to the thought that happiness is, perhaps, a static mental pleasure.

    It does seem that everyone has their own subjective idea about what happiness is.


    Quote from Godfrey

    I'd say physical health and pleasure aren't necessarily necessary for happiness,

    Chronic pain can lead to depression. Pleasure is a natural by-poduct of activities such as eating food, regardless of feeling "happy". So happiness is something else beyond pleasure.

    Quote from Cassius

    and Torqatus thought there were talking to when they ended up emphasizing almost the exact words of "a life of happiness is a life of pleasure."

    I was just thinking about how there is something in that "On Ends" which says that Epicurus was the masterbuilder of the life of happiness.

    Quote from Cassius

    There's an answer for us to how to balance these terms, but why is there an issue with other people not understanding that they go hand in hand and are not in conflct? Why do people see a conflict between happiness and pleasure? And what's the most direct way to get them to see that they are mistaken in presuming that there is a conflict? What's the key to unwinding that perceived discomfort?

    The conflict is about what does the word "pleasure" mean, and what does the word "happiness" mean. It may not be possible to have everyone agree about what these words mean.

    Quote from Godfrey

    This seems problematic to me. And it's also the crux of the issue: is happiness something beyond pleasure?

    That's a great way of getting at this question too. And asked that way, it seems to me to be precisely why Diogenes of Oinoanda decided to shout about it. I know his context was defeating the setting of "virtue" as higher, but wouldn't his argument apply not only to virtue but to "happiness?" Wasn't he pitting "virtue" against "pleasure" for exactly the reason so many people try to pit "happiness" against "pleasure?"


    Have we quoted him lately? :)


    Diogenes of Oinoanda doesn't help to clear up things for me, because it doesn't saying what it means by happiness.


    Thinking further on this, off the top of my head:


    -- "happiness" is a feeling of enjoyment that comes when we experience pleasure, and this feeling comes and goes depending on the situation.


    -- "happiness" can also be thought of as something encompassing a longer period of time (for example looking back over the past year and also projecting onto future months) -- when you feel pleased and when things are going well in your life. (And so I still stick with the idea of it being an internal story (basically if you tell yourself if you are satisfied and generally enjoying how your life is unfolding).


    According to Diogenes of Oinoanda, the virtues are the means to find happiness in life:

    If, gentlemen, the point at issue between these people and us involved inquiry into «what is the means of happiness?» and they wanted to say «the virtues» (which would actually be true), it would be unnecessary to take any other step than to agree with them about this, without more ado.

    -----So now, I would say that this actually isn't the whole picture and is missing things which are in the Principal Doctrines -- a happy life (which entails more pleasure than pain), requires prudence in choices, and also other factors (a secure future, freedom from fears of death/God, supportive friendships, and self-sufficiency (which I would apply now in modern times as being having a good job in which you are free to make the needed choices to do what you need to do. I have read that not having freedom to make decisions in the workplace can be very frustrating).

    Quote from Kalosyni

    Diogenes of Oinoanda doesn't help to clear up things for me, because it doesn't saying what it means by happiness.

    Yep it is too bad we don't have more context at the beginning. But my expectation would be that if we had more of the "point in issue" we would see that this is a very abstract debate being stated in very philosophical, rather than practical, terms.


    It seems to me in day to day life we consider "living pleasurably" and "living happily" to be totally interchangeable. But the reason we are having this discussion is that philosophers see a need to plant a flag and reduce everything down to a single word-concept that they can rally and organize around. I think that's a legitimate perspective too.


    One way of looking at all this seems to me to be: Everything at the philosophic level seems to revolve around war-games between "Virtue" and "Piety" and "Reason" (or "Logic" or "Idealism"). Epicurus rejected those and decided it made the most sense to designate his flag as "Pleasure." He might well have called his flag "Happiness" but it's not a very good strategy to choose the same flag everyone else is carrying, and "Happiness" and similar words are claimed by everyone from every camp. If you're going to fight a war or make your point clear in philosophy you need a very clear and understandable flag. The choice of the word "Pleasure" both makes the correct point and throws the issue in the face of those who disapprove of it.


    A lot of people tend to want to blur all these issues because they want to be polite and diplomatic. That's understandable too, and when the situation calls for that then "happiness" may make sense. But if you forget what context you're talking in, and use the word "Happiness" when you in a philosophical debate, then you don't do much but guarantee that the real point in issue will never be examined and decided.


    It's one thing to choose to blur the issues when you think you are trying to lead someone along gradually to understand the point in issue. But I feel sure it is not lost on those who disapprove of Epicurus that as long as they keep the discussion solely about "Happiness" then no serious philosopher will ever take the Epicurean position seriously.


    A book title like "Living for Pleasure" makes a point that a title like "Living for Happiness" never could.