Confusion: "The feelings are only two"

Quote from Rolf

This here almost feels like an endorsement for the "ascetic absence of pain" argument. "To be in no pain" seems to be used here literally, rather than to mean "100% pleasure 0% pain". And, if I understand correctly, this state is put above "joyous activity of pleasure". How do you interpret this? Though perhaps it's meant to be read as "since there are only two feelings, if the hand is not in pain, then it is in pleasure, and therefore feels no need for pleasure".

Yes I think your last sentence is the explanation. There's a lot to process in the whole passage, among which is the fact that we don't think of a hand or any other part of the body as having its own separate will or thought process to think that it "lacks" anything. So there's some underlying premise here that's not being stated as to why the whole question should be interpreted as making sense. I presume that Chrysippus is reasoning something along the lines of "You Epicurus say that pleasure is the guide of ALL living things, so it ought not make any difference whether the living thing has a brain or not, so let's pick a "hand."

When you put it together with much else that Cicero says, the general point seems to be that Chrysippus is taking the orthodox position that pleasure means "stimulation." If pleasure means stimulation, and Epicurus is going to assert that all things are guided toward pleasure, then a hand should feel the lack of pleasure when it is not stimulated, and the hand should want stimulation. The fact that the hand doesn't seem to want stimulation is to Chrysippus proof that the hand does not identify pleasure as the good. And if the hand doesn't, Epicurus, then why should we presume that pleasure is nature's goal for living things -- your theory is blown to bits.

And that's why Torquatus' father told him that the argument was laughable, as it is effective against people like the Cyreniacs who identify pleasure with stimulation, but it doesn't touch Epicurus, since Epicurus' definition of pleasure is more than just stimulation, and includes healthy normal functioning. And since there is no reason to believe that Chrysippus' hand was not functioning normally at the time of the questioning, in the Epicurean view Chrysippus' hand is experiencing pleasure (because normal healthy condition is considered to be pleasure, even though that condition isn't stimulation).

For me the trickier part is where Torquatus goes further, as he does several times, and state that the absence of pain (which I think is fairly interpreted as in PD03) means not only pleasure, but the height of pleasure. To me, the various examples can reasonably be interpreted only one way (especially when Torquatus says "nothing could be more true"). What is being referred to is the logical / mathematical point (which you cited already) that when there are only two possibilities, the absence of one IS the presence of the other - which is compelled by definition to the extent words have any necessity in them at all.

This is where I think Cicero intentionally leaves the the Epicurean argument incomplete, because he should have allowed Torquatus to spell that out explicitly. Instead, he leaves the implication clear but dangling. And in the case of the question regarding the comparison of the pleasure of the host who is pouring wine to the guest who is drinking wine, Cicero doesn't allow explanation by Torquatus at all -- we are just left to draw the logical conclusion that anyone who is "without pain" is at the height of pleasure - in pure pleasure - by definition.

Remember that the "height of pleasure" or "the limit of pleasure" need not be interpreted to mean "most intense" or "longest duration" or "all parts of the body." All "the limit of pleasure" really requires is that what is being measured is 100% pleasure and 0% pain. And if you say that your hand, or yourself, or anything else is "without pain" -- then if we are saying what we mean and mean what we say - then we are saying that we are at the "height of pleasure." People can balk and bark back that "that's not what I mean when I say height of pleasure!" But if they've been paying attention, Epicurus has shown them over and over that they need to think about how they are using words like "gods" and "virtue" and "pleasure" --- and "height of pleasure" is just another example of the same kind of re-statement of what a word really means.

Quote from Rolf

I'm also unsure about how this passage relates to the topic at hand (no pun intended), in terms of attitude and mindset. Or was it meant as a more general callback to the initial topic of the thread?

I was mainly referring back to the general topic of the thread, but now that you mention it there is definitely a "mindset" issue here too -- seeing "height of pleasure" and "pleasure" in more accurate terms is a matter of adjusting your mind. That's the reason I entitled one of my recent articles a "Paradigm Shift"

Quote from Rolf

Speaking of which - a vaguely related thought I want to bring up. There are times when I find myself doubting whether Epicurean philosophy can truly work for me — not because I disagree with its core ideas, but because I live with a persistent undercurrent of physical discomfort. I start to wonder if Epicureanism assumes a baseline of health that I just don’t have.

I would say that whether something "works" is defined by whether it is consistent with reality. The unreal and madeup can never "work" for any length of time. The Epicurean viewpoint is the one that is consistent with reality, so I'd say that it's the only one that could every "work" for anyone, no matter how much baseline of pain you start with. Epicurean philosophy is going to call you to do everything you can to change the situation, and even when it can't be changed, it isn't going to try to lull you into complacency with a noble lie

Quote from Rolf

In those moments, other perspectives become tempting. The “surrender to the flow” of Taoism, or the radical acceptance of Stoicism, can seem like a way to bypass the whole problem of pain — to dissolve it in detachment. And yet, they ultimately drift from reality by denying that pleasure and pain matter.

Yes that is the problem. And sure someone can go ahead and commit suicide, counting on their religion to take them to a better place. I don't see counting on fables as a workable solution - I see that as the ultimate in terrible trades and guaranteed to lead to unfortunate results. At least when you are dealing with the truth, even though the odds may be stacked against you, you aren't placing your hope in fictional rescues that will never come.

Quote from Rolf

For sure. When it comes to pains that are chosen to avoid greater pain or achieve greater pleasure, I completely understand. However, I am more concerned about the pains that we do not choose - the unnecessary pains that serve no purpose. How do we reconcile them under Epicureanism, particularly if they are frequent? If one is truly unable to get rid of such pains, is it best to adjust one's mindset and accept them? Does Epicurus write about this sort of thing? From what I've read so far, pain is mainly mentioned in the contexts of a) pain should be avoided and b) some pains should be chosen in the name of prudence. But what of the pains that can neither be avoided nor are chosen?

We certainly sometimes are subjected to pain beyond our control. As Epicurus said to Menoeceus,

Quote

We must then bear in mind that the future is neither ours, nor yet wholly not ours, so that we may not altogether expect it as sure to come, nor abandon hope of it, as if it will certainly not come.

...

(He thinks that with us lies the chief power in determining events, some of which happen by necessity) and some by chance, and some are within our control; for while necessity cannot be called to account, he sees that chance is inconstant, but that which is in our control is subject to no master, and to it are naturally attached praise and blame.

I think we've gone through this example before but the best is probably Epicurus own kidney disease. I don't know that he "accepted" it, but he found ways to enjoy life even in the presence of the pain. I think that's the answer to your question - what you can't get rid of you work on diluting with pleasure to the extent possible. That's not a satisfying answer to some, probably, but the fake gods and fake ideals of the Stoics and others are not going to be able to eliminate pain either, despite what they may say, and if they persuade you to give up studying nature and trying to apply your mind to solving your problem and/or diluting your pain, then they are taking away from you any real hope of bettering the situation. Because the hopes offered by supernatural religion and false philosophies aren't real.

Rolf I'll riff on your questions without, at least for the moment, any specific citations other than to say that everything I'm about to refer to is in the PDs. For me, the PDs have been tricky. At the beginning they sounded rather obscure, but as I have read, paused and returned to them over various intervals they seem to be pretty straightforward, although incredibly insightful. They require time and percolation.

First, living with chronic pain is a case study in the way in which it is unhelpful to imagine that there's a neutral state. The neutral state is, to me, a product of laziness and lack of rigor. When I've found myself thinking that I'm in a neutral state, I've repeatedly noticed that it really means that I'm not paying attention. Once I pay more attention to my feelings, I invariably notice subtle pleasures and pains at various places in my body and mind.

From this it becomes evident that, as stated in the PDs, pleasures and pains have intensity, location and duration. I often find that some of my parts are in pleasure or pain, but others not so much, or quite the opposite. And a feeling in one part might be drowning out a feeling in another part. A feeling may spread from one part to others: sciatica that comes and goes may prompt mental anticipation of pain, which causes muscles to tense, which lights up the sciatica... &c. (This could be thought of as an example of "pain v suffering".) Or a subtle feeling of pleasure might spread, thus increasing in location and perhaps duration.

Eventually, it becomes apparent that none of the feelings are constant, at least up to an extreme point as per PD04.

For me, part of the beauty of Epicurus' analysis of pleasure and pain is that it is exceptionally nuanced and provides the Epicurist so much to work with. We can offset various pains by noticing and dialing in to pleasures in other parts, and we can work at increasing these pleasures even if we can't seem to diminish the pains. We can seek pleasure strategically when we understand what, for each of us, provides the greatest payoff in terms of maximizing our pleasure and minimizing our pain. Sometimes this takes time. Lots of time. But we humans are intricate instruments, not the golems that Cicero and the Stoics imagine us to be.

Quote from Rolf

When I'm in a "neutral state" - not sick, injured, etc. - and I focus on my body's senses, I pretty much always notice some kind of ache, tenseness, stomach pain, itchiness, or some other uncomfortable feeling that I'm generally able to ignore when I'm not not fixating on it.

I think this is typically the case for most people. For me, "clearing the mind" is pleasant before sleep, but when I am awake and ready, then "mind-clearing meditation" feels like intellectual asceticism and it is at this point I will notice the extra sensations you mention.

Happily, Epikouros recommends an active and applied mind, he says:

"I recommend continuous activity in physics and pacify myself particularly with such a life."
(D.L. 10.37a)

----------

Epikouros fully acknowledged that all pleasures are based in active pleasures, but he identified the pleasure of being satisfied (i.e., "established pleasures") as the natural goal of living things.

Unlike ascetics, we do not deny the body -- and unlike the average man, we do not deny having reached full pleasure when we are satisfied.

"Eating" is pleasurable, but a life dedicated to "eating" is sad and unhealthy -- and so for the rest of the active pleasures. If we reach the point of satisfaction and wonder what else our body needs, we are missing the point. If we form a lifestyle focused on satisfying our physical pleasures, our intellectual abilities will suffer.

But bodily satisfaction is the beginning of the intellectual life -- and once this is achieved, then here it is healthy to settle in, and consume and consume (philosophy and science) as a lifestyle.

Quote from Bryan

I think this is typically the case for most people. For me, "clearing the mind" is pleasant before sleep, but when I am awake and ready, then "mind-clearing meditation" feels like intellectual asceticism and it is at this point I will notice the extra sensations you mention.

Thanks Bryan , I also don't like the idea of "clearing the mind" -- as when you are awake there will always be something there. Better to focus on pleasurable sensations such as focusing on the feeling of the breath in the body (as it goes in and out, making it smooth and deep and allowing the speed of the breath to feel good as needed). Or there is the state of mental flow when engaged in concentration (arts, crafts, etc.) when the mind is engaged and focusing fully while also feeling relaxed (just right) as at the same time one is engaged in the craft. (This is just an aside, had to share ).

Quote from Bryan

Epikouros fully acknowledged that all pleasures are based in active pleasures, but he identified the pleasure of being satisfied (i.e., "established pleasures") as the natural goal of living things.

Unlike ascetics, we do not deny the body -- and unlike the average man, we do not deny having reached full pleasure when we are satisfied.

"Eating" is pleasurable, but a life dedicated to "eating" is sad and unhealthy -- and so for the rest of the active pleasures. If we reach the point of satisfaction and wonder what else our body needs, we are missing the point. If we form a lifestyle focused on satisfying our physical pleasures, our intellectual abilities will suffer.

But bodily satisfaction is the beginning of the intellectual life -- and once this is achieved, then here it is healthy to settle in, and consume and consume (philosophy and science) as a lifestyle.

Thank you Bryan Well said!

Also, we carry on with our household duties, with joy and laughter [friendship] . --Vatican Saying 41