Episode 195 - Cicero's On Ends - Book Two - Part 05

Technically, having the absence of pain throughout your body and mind is the fullest pleasure. Practically, I'm not sure that I've ever experienced that! Maybe when I was a baby?

In any part of the organism, once all pain is gone you can experience increasing pleasure in that part, at least until the increased sensation causes pain. So, interestingly, the maximum pleasure of the entire organism is the absence of pain, whereas the absence of pain is the minimum of pleasure for any specific location in the organism.

This explains the interaction of intensity, location and duration. The location of the minimum pleasure in every location throughout the organism is considered a greater pleasure than the most intense pleasure in a few parts of the organism. Practically speaking, this provides some guidance for maximizing pleasure through working with all three of the components instead of just the component of intensity.

(oops, we cross posted)

At the risk of interrupting a very important and interesting thread in this conversation, I personally found this line intriguing:

Quote from "Torquatus" in Reid translation

‘No, a pleasure different in kind. For the quenching of the thirst brings with it a steady pleasure, whereas the pleasure which accompanies the process of quenching itself consists in agitation.

These two:

1. a steady pleasure
2. [pleasure consisting] in agitation.

Sound to me exactly like the categories of katastematic (a steady pleasure) and kinetic (agitations) pleasure.

In fact, Rackham comes right out and translates the phrases that way:

Quote from "Torquatus" in Rackham translation

"No, it is a different kind of pleasure. For the pleasure of having quenched one's thirst is a 'static' pleasure, but the pleasure of actually quenching it is a 'kinetic' pleasure."

I think this again show the importance that Epicurus and later Epicureans insisted on using these categories to clearly show the all-encompassing spectrum of pleasure that their philosophy insisted upon.

Quote from Cassius

Maybe quantity applies at the macro level but at the micro level that is where you have duration, intensity, and location?

I've actually been wondering for a while if magnitude/quantity was describing the same thing as condensing/intensity, but I think you're going in a better direction. Here's my latest thinking:

Magnitude/quantity simply comprises intensity, location and duration. This can occur at any intensity at any location for one moment, or at many locations for a long period of time. The limit of the magnitude/quantity is the absence of pain throughout the organism, for the life of the organism. But, practically speaking, we can work with intensity, location and duration of individual pleasures (through reasoning about our desiresand comparison with our experiences of pleasure and pain) in order to maximize the pleasures available to us. This is exactly what Epicurus did on his deathbed: there wasn't much physical pleasure available to him, so he maximized his mental pleasures, through recollection of his most intense pleasures, in the time that he had left.

A question is "why is absence of pain throughout the organism (macro) the limit of magnitude, whereas a more localized pleasure (micro) can increase beyond mere absence of pain?"

- Macro pleasure, by definition, can't increase in location. A micro pleasure can.

- Can macro pleasure can increase in duration? Or is it specifically "godlike"? A micro pleasure can increase in duration.

- Can a macro pleasure increase in intensity? Epicurus is apparently saying that it cannot, that it's limit is the absence of pain. From experience it seems that a micro pleasure can increase in intensity.

- Intensity the actual Feeling of pleasure or pain, right. Location and duration are simply where and when that Feeling occurs.

Is there something special about intensity at the macro v the micro level? Is Epicurus' description of the limit of magnitude/quantity as a type of homeostasis? Could the latter case be a situation where there are no pains anywhere, ever, to overcome so that there is no need to pursue a pleasure in one place to offset a pain in another place?

Oh, and great discussion in 195! Well done! Looking forward to more Cicero dissection.

Quote from Cassius

As differences involving manner of experience those are useful to consider but i don't see them as words expressing comparatives or superlatives of Pleasure as the general category. You can use and need both.

Fully agree!

I wanted to quickly drop in to this thread to say that this episode has brought up some questions for me - regaring the use of the word "pleasure" in every-day speech.

I personally feel that I want to start using more words, and different words, which are more accurate for each and every given situation.

The word pleasure can encompass so much, however in my mind and perhaps others who speak English, the word pleasure is used to apply to sensations that have a certain intensity and stimulate the senses. (Perhaps other languages/nationalities have a different understanding than American/British people. For example, in France they might say "It's a pleasure to meet you" - but in the USA we would never say that.)

So then more accurately we would say that the goal of Epicureans is to seek out pleasing experiences, pleasantness, and also pleasures (sensations) - what is agreeable, pleasant, and pleasurable. When is comes to mental pleasure we say "enjoyable" or "pleasant".

Quote from Kalosyni

For example, in France they might say "It's a pleasure to meet you" - but in the USA we would never say that.

LOL. I say that all the time.

Quote from Don

Quote from Kalosyni

For example, in France they might say "It's a pleasure to meet you" - but in the USA we would never say that.

LOL. I say that all the time.

Perhaps you are French? lol (So then I guess I am incorrect in my understanding regarding the frequency of this usage).

Quote from Kalosyni

Quote from Don

Quote from Kalosyni

For example, in France they might say "It's a pleasure to meet you" - but in the USA we would never say that.

LOL. I say that all the time.

Perhaps you are French? lol (So then I guess I am incorrect in my understanding regarding the frequency of this usage).

I will admit I started to use it with more frequency over the last few years... Can't think of a reason why

Yeah, I do hear that greeting in the Midwest. I probably say it myself from time to time, though I'm not sure. We'll have to ask kochiekoch!

Quote from Don

I will admit I started to use it with more frequency over the last few years... Can't think of a reason why

Perhaps you are meeting more interesting people these days!

As for myself I seem to say "Nice to meet you".

Quote from Joshua

Yeah, I do hear that greeting in the Midwest. I probably say it myself from time to time, though I'm not sure. We'll have to ask kochiekoch!

"It's a pleasure to meet you"?

Usually something like "nice meeting you". Could be regional.

Quote from Cassius

I think we could reword that this way:

A question is "why is absence of pain (which is the definition of pleasure) through the organism (at macro level) the limit of magnitude, whereas a more localized pleasure (at the micro level) can increase?"

If that is saying the same thing, which I think it is, the answer is pretty obvious: a macro level pleasure cannot increase by definition. because it has no more room to increase, while pleasure at any smaller degree than macro level can increase because it still has room to increase.

Sorry for disappearing... busy day!

Yes, that rewording of the question is the same thing.

The last paragraph in Cassius ' quote shows that, yet again, I wasn't clear enough in my overall analysis above. As far as it goes, what is presented in this paragraph is obvious. The components of location and duration obviously cannot increase at the macro level, but they can at the micro level.

What's not obvious to me is the role of intensity. If intensity can increase at the micro level beyond the absence of pain, why can it not increase at the macro level? Or is intensity the wrong description of this component of pleasure? Is it really just a two way switch that jumps from pleasure to pain? If this is the case, then the three components are feeling, location and duration. If so, "feeling" describes both the composite of the three components and one of the components, in which case I think it's a better description to say that pleasures and pains vary through the modifiers of location and duration, and avoid the word "intensity". Which might actually be the way the Greek texts are written: at least in PD09, I've been understanding (as has at least one translator) "condensed" to be equivalent to varying intensity.

I don't have a problem with that, and that might be exactly the conclusion from PD03 and PD09. This means that what is perceived as "intensity" is, in fact, an increase or decrease (condensing) in location and/or duration. My general sense is that I can increase the intensity of a pleasure or pain without increasing the location or duration. Is that actually incorrect? If one was to dig into the science, is a nerve ending (if that's the correct term) an on-off switch? Imagine a pleasure or pain resulting from a pressure. Does increasing the pressure simply recruit more nerve endings (increase the location) rather than elicit a greater response from the original quantity of nerve endings? If I'm getting this right, that seems to be what Epicurus intuited and what he based his conception of maximum pleasure on.

Am I making a comprehensible presentation? If so, does it make any sense?

(Cross posted again...)

Cassius , my post just now and your last post (which cross-posted) are talking about the same problem, I think. Just approached slightly differently....