Confusion: "The feelings are only two"

Quote from Rolf

How does reason justify the application, exactly?

Great question. Here I would say that this is where the study of nature comes in. You look at the universe and derive from what you see that it is natural and has no gods over it nor needs any outside justification. You realize that your consciousness is available to you but for a short time. You realize that being alive without pain is "good" and a privilege and a pleasure that is available only for a while. You decide based on all the facts that being alive is something that feels right AND you consciously desire to continue it and to make the best of it.

All sorts of reasoning can be used from all sorts of direction to reinforce this, but in the end the assessment you make of the universe and your place is that it is desirable - maybe as Nietzsche might say you say "Yes" to existence and the world, and you choose to value every moment of it that is available to you. Lots of Epicurean sayings reinforce that positive outlook on life. That's the direction I would take that answer.

Quote from Patrikios

You just have to tune your mind in to the small pleasures that your body is experiencing when it is just operating normally.

And as Patrikious says in using the word "tune" several times, the decision to embrace this worldview, rather than fear and otherworldliness and escape, is a conscious decision that requires you to "tune in" to this perspective. It doesn't happen just by falling off the turnip truck or by simply "observing" the light of day -- you have to put it together in your mind in a way that makes sense.

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. This isn't some new sensation either - this has been my general experience for as long as I can remember, and I don't have any kind of underlying medical issues (that I know of) that would cause this kind of thing.

I think a lot of people would say this, and I wouldn't disagree. What I would cite in response is the example of Epicurus on his last day or the hypo of being in the bull of Phalaris. Your mind should never be in neutral - it always has the capacity to generate positive feelings which are (or should be) more significant to us than those aches and pains you are speaking about. This would be another reason why I would emphasize the importance of the "philosophic approach" over and above any implication that we can find what most people think of as bodily pleasure simply by minimizing bodily pain.

These two examples (Epicurus last day and the bull of Phalaris) combine well with the hand of Chrysippus to lead in this direction. There's no magic underlying feeling that suddenly leaps to the fore when we eliminate pains -- we have to mentally appreciate being alive in order to generate the result we are looking for. The person who does not apply Epicurean philosophy in this way will find nothing but emptiness when he drains his experience of feeling, and that's when he (the non-Epicurean) starts looking for "meaning" and supernatural escape.

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.

That's simply because you're a mortal being in a material world. I have come to the conviction, using Epicurus's philosophy as jumping off point, that there is no neutral state. If you are alive, you're feeling, sensing sensations both within and around your body and mind. Even without the findings of modern neuroscience, I have no problem thinking of Epicurus thinking through this and coming up to a similar conclusion:

• living = reacting to sensations
• we are always experiencing our internal and external stimuli (note: Epicurus wouldn't use these words but I have no problem thinking of him thinking parallel thoughts)
• humans can experience sensations either positively (pleasure) or negatively (pain).
• There can be no "neutral" state; that would mean we aren't feeling anything, aren't experiencing anything. We are ALWAYS feeling/experiencing pleasure OR pain. We have no choice BUT to experience as long as we are living.

It's important to remember that pathe/pathos in ancient Greek most fundamentally means "what one has experienced." Epicurus took the bold step to say there are ONLY two ways to experience the world, either as pleasure or as pain. EVERYTHING we experience, internally or externally, is either painful or pleasurable. And he encompassed the totality of human experience within those two feelings.

Now there are gradations and types of pain and of pleasure: joy, grief, anger, ecstasy, boredom, sleepiness, elation, contentment, happiness, satisfaction, rage, love, disgust, and on and on. But everything - all of those - fall into either pleasure or pain.

Quote from Cassius

Your mind should never be in neutral - it always has the capacity to generate positive feelings which are (or should be) more significant to us than those aches and pains you are speaking about.

I would disagree with Cassius 's wording. Your mind can never be in neutral. Your mind doesn't "generate" positive feelings, it experiences them before you can think about generating.

Epicurus' pain wasn't eliminated by his thoughts of his conversations with friends on his last day. He continued to feel his diseased, inflamed kidneys as searing pain. His memories allowed him to "hold his ground against" the pain as if he was drawing up his troops against the pain: ἀντιπαρετάττετο. Those memories gave him pleasure in the midst of his mortal pain, not in spite of the pain. He could be happy with his life, reliving those pleasant memories, in the midst of his pain.

Quote from Rolf

This is perhaps why I've been finding it difficult to understand and reconcile the idea that pleasure is the default state.

I don't know if "default state" is the right way of thinking about this. There is no "default" setting I don't think. The pleasure of the mind and body working well, being healthy, and having all your parts working in harmony is pleasure. BUT There is no guarantee in life that the mind and body are going to work well, that you'll be health, and that your various parts will be in harmony. You have to work at it. You can't set it to a default and just let it run. If you have that, you have everything needed to experience other pleasures. I would rather think of "a body without pain, and an untroubled mind" being the ground from which other pleasures can be more readily experienced. Granted, if we have that, it can sink into the background if we don't appreciate it... and if we neglect our body and mind, it can fall into pain, trouble, etc. There is no guaranteed default.

Quote from Don

I would disagree with Cassius 's wording. Your mind can never be in neutral. Your mind doesn't "generate" positive feelings, it experiences them before you can think about generating

We should talk further about (1) how to regard idle or non-Epicurean thought processes, and (2) whether it is appropriate to consider the mind as generating pleasure and pain. I am in general agreement with Don's post, but I think how we choose to use our minds does generate pleasure or pain.

Also, while I think it is very reasonable and justifiable to divide all feelings between pleasure and pain, and to insist that there is no neutral state, I am not prepared to say that Epicurus' categorization plan is the only one that can be proposed and discussed. Cicero and Plato have a different definition of pleasure than does Epicurus, and they call absence of stimulation 'neutral.'

I think they are wrong to regard it that way, but does that mean that their position cannot be acknowledged and discussed to explain the problem they cause for themselves? Is Epicurean philosophy best seen as the best choice for how to live because it generates the most happiness, or is Epicurean philosophy best seen as the way everyone in fact lives whether they admit it or not?

The latter view sounds to me like that "psychological hedonism" argument that I find extremely unhelpful, and yet I acknowledge that the argument exists. So too I would accept that it is possible to view the world as does a Stoic or a Buddhist, even though I would classify that view as wrong because it is harmful.

But for now I have no problem rewording "should never be in a neutral state" to "should never be considered to be in a neutral state."

Rolf I'll say publicly what I told you privately - I do not judge your questioning to be pessimistic or too persistent. You are asking excellent questions and doing us a great favor by boring in on a key issue like this. Please keep it up and feel free to expand the questioning to other topics when you are through with this one!

Quote from Cassius

(2) whether it is appropriate to consider the mind as generating pleasure and pain. I am in general agreement with Don's post, but I think how we choose to use our minds does generate pleasure or pain.

I'm rethinking that a little, in the sense of "what does generate mean?" Feelings, I suppose, do arise from our minds, so maybe "generate" in some sense is correct.

Quote from Cassius

Also, while I think it is very reasonable and justifiable to divide all feelings between pleasure and pain, and to insist that there is no neutral state, I am not prepared to say that Epicurus' categorization plan is the only one that can be proposed and discussed. Cicero and Plato have a different definition of pleasure than does Epicurus, and they call absence of stimulation 'neutral.'

Anything can certainly be proposed and discussed. The question, to me, is "Does the idea correlate to reality or not?" Epicurus' categorization, to my current understanding, correlates to reality while Cicero, Plato, "St." Paul, etc. do not. I think some ideas in Buddhism are interesting, but overall it has too much other baggage. But that was why I considered myself a Buddhist for a number of years. It made the most sense to me and conformed to my understanding of reality at the time in contrast to all the other philosophies and religions I had studied up to that point. Then I discovered Epicurus.

Cicero and Plato redefine pleasure for their own purposes, but Epicurus' all-encompassing concept of pleasure and pain just makes sense to me. Could he have chosen a "better" word than pleasure? Maybe? But he was going for maximum impact. He was engaging in philosophical battle with the other schools, and fighting on the same field with them. He engaged with those ideas, took a hold of them, and used the terms of the day to explain reality better than the other schools.

Quote from Rolf

it is normal to feel aches, pains, and other discomforts when focusing on the body?

I would even leave off that last "when focusing..." It is normal - natural - to feel aches, pains, etc as it is to feel pleasure.

Quote from Rolf

If a body without pain and an untroubled mind if the essential foundation, I’m unsure if I’ll ever reach such a state. This supposed “healthy functioning body, free from pain” sounds almost mythical to me. Do people really feel this way, beyond some scattered moments?

An untroubled mind (ataraxia) to me - and this may be just me - is about doing away with unnecessary fears, anxieties, that clog up our experience of the world as it is. Dispelling those fears and anxieties provides a base of operations from which to experience life. I'm thinking primarily of the fear of death, of divine retribution, of fate, and so on. I'm still working through some of these myself! It's not some numbness that comes over someone, it's a confidence in one's place in the universe and ones agency in it.

I'm still working on aponia, but it doesn't -again, to me - mean total absence of pain. It's being in a body that does it's thing without effort, without struggle, and there are degrees of this - again, to my understanding. Like I said, I'm still working on this!

I agree with Cassius . Keep asking great questions! This really helps me question my own positions and to ask myself again some of these same things. Enjoying the conversation!!

Quote from Don

The question, to me, is "Does the idea correlate to reality or not?" Epicurus' categorization, to my current understanding, correlates to reality while Cicero, Plato, "St." Paul, etc. do not.

Quote from Don

Cicero and Plato redefine pleasure for their own purposes, but Epicurus' all-encompassing concept of pleasure and pain just makes sense to me.

I'm not adding anything new here, but we keep talking about "definitions" and "correlating to reality" for a reason. I always worry about staying away from "reductionism" -- implying that there is no fixed outside reality and everything can be changed simply by assigning different words. It appears Democritus went in that direction, and that leads to skepticism and determinism and all sorts of problems.

Then there's the opposite problem - thinking that there is some absolute eternal reference point either in heaven (Plato) or within everything (Aristotle), and thinking that our task is just to get in touch with this ultimate reality through logic, religion, etc.

What I think Epicurus is doing and we're trying to restate in English is that we should consider as "real" what our feelings tell us as to pleasure and pain. Those feelings come in many varieties , and we can assign many different words and descriptions to them, but we don't change their nature by using different words. We legitimately "feel" certain things to be positive or negative, and we're not just arbitrarily changing the desirable or undesirable nature of the feeling by calling the good bad or the bad good.

I see this as analogous to seeing and hearing and the other core senses. We can assign all sorts of names to describe what we deduce about the inputs of the eyes or ears, but the inputs come to us, like pleasure and pain do, by nature, and without the eyes or the ears etc injecting their own opinions.

My point in writing this being that we're not just totally playing word games by dividing the feelings into two categories. When we observe that it's possible to divide the feelings into different categories, we tend to recoil and think that everything is totally a matter of how we define it, and there's no solid footing on which we can ever stand and have confidence in our conclusions. Epicurus is saying that you have freedom of thought and you can take the position that nothing in life is real or certain if you like, but if you do you will suffer very bad consequences. It's much better for you to look at nature and realize that no matter whether you like it or not, nature has given you faculties of feeling and sensation that when properly understood and used can lead to lives in which pleasure predominates.

Quote from Rolf

This discussion makes me wonder: How important is a conscious positive mindset/attitude to Epicurean living?

I would say it's very important. It seems to me that it's implicit in virtually all of it that you have to make conscious choices to focus your mind and decide to trust the senses and use them properly. If you don't then you end up like Cicero or worse, with an essentially supernatural or terrified or depressed view of life.

Now Cicero et al would say that it's more important to be in accord with the gods and virtue than it is to be happy, but that's again where you have to decide what kind of universe you think you live in, how you are able to learn things (if at all) and what choices you are going to make about how to live.

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.

This reminds me that it does take work to tune into pleasure (I myself need to put more effort into it).

Have you tried observing the feeling that comes up when you come home from work and then finally sit (flop down) down onto a couch...ahhh what a relief.

Or...on a cold morning jumping into a nice warm shower...ahhh how good the warmth is.

Or...going for a jog and feeling a bit of a runner's high...or a brisk walk feeling the body breathing smoothly and functioning well.

As for sitting still and feeling pleasure, that takes work, and Buddhist meditation is a good way to find it (also it depends on the teacher and type of meditation) -- There isn't any evidence that Epicureans did meditation (but Torquatus explains the meaning of Cryssypus' hand which could be seen as very similar to meditation - I'll look for that thread and edit in the link when i find it).

Yes I agree that that is true.

Also Rolf, have you read the Chrisypus' hand challenge, and if so what do you make of it?

It's in Book One of On Ends:

[39] But actually at Athens, as my father used to tell me, when he wittily and humorously ridiculed the Stoics, there is in the Ceramicus a statue of Chrysippus, sitting with his hand extended, which hand indicates that he was fond of the following little argument: Does your hand, being in its present condition, feel the lack of anything at all? Certainly of nothing. But if pleasure were the supreme good, it would feel a lack. I agree. Pleasure then is not the supreme good. My father used to say that even a statue would not talk in that way, if it had power of speech. The inference is shrewd enough as against the Cyrenaics, but does not touch Epicurus. For if the only pleasure were that which, as it were, tickles the senses, if I may say so, and attended by sweetness overflows them and insinuates itself into them, neither the hand nor any other member would be able to rest satisfied with the absence of pain apart from a joyous activity of pleasure. But if it is the highest pleasure, as Epicurus believes, to be in no pain, then the first admission, that the hand in its then existing condition felt no lack, was properly made to you, Chrysippus, but the second improperly, I mean that it would have felt a lack had pleasure been the supreme good. It would certainly feel no lack, and on this ground, that anything which is cut off from the state of pain is in the state of pleasure.

Dewitt stresses that attitude is a large part of what Epicurus teaches by pointing out that many of his teachings are just that -setting attitude - by such things as "believe that a god is a living being blessed and imperishable...." And others.

For example Rolf:

10.2. THE DOUBLE CHOICE

The first and foremost refinement of the topic in the hands of Epicurus was to draw a clear distinction between choosing an attitude, diathesis, toward action in a given sphere and choosing to do or not to do a given thing within that field. For example, a man must first choose what attitude he shall assume toward death and the gods, pleasure and pain, Necessity, Fortune, political life, monarchy, fame, friendship, diet, and several others. To exemplify from this list, the right attitude toward Necessity is to deny it, toward Fortune to defy her, toward political life to avoid it, toward fame to ignore it, and toward friendship to look upon it as the most precious of all the acquisitions of the wise man. The famous collection known as the Authorized Doctrines is rightly understood as a guide for the choice of attitudes toward the essential things in the art of living happily. The first, for instance, advises the disciple that the gods are not to be feared. This is an attitude, which is first to be chosen and then cultivated.

The choice of attitude, however, by no means abolished the necessity of making individual choices. The proper attitude toward pain, for instance, is to regard it as inherently evil and to be avoided; nevertheless, in the individual case the lesser pain, such as that of the surgeon's knife, is endured for the sake of the greater good. Again, the proper attitude toward food is to prefer a simple diet, but this does not preclude and even approves the occasional indulgence. Neither is political life to be avoided under all circumstances; the evil is not in such a life itself but in surrendering freedom by making a career of it. Thus in spite of the choices of attitude the necessity of making the individual choice is perpetual.

Apologies for lurking; lots going on in my life these days. I just want to toss in the observation that both pleasure and pain are guides to choosing and avoiding. We strive for pleasure and consider pain an "evil". But even as we sometimes choose a pain in the service of greater pleasure, even being more aware of our pains can provide us with guidance to greater pleasure.

Complete absence of pain, which is the fullness of pleasure, while it sounds great, is for "the gods". The rest of us may enjoy it from time to time, and the rest of the time it's a goal to strive for.

Quote from Rolf

If I’m experiencing bodily pain, for instance, it’s objectively painful. I trust my senses that I am experiencing pain. However, if I dwell on and agonise over the pain, I will experience it more strongly. On the other hand, with a more positive mindset, or a conscious effort to accept the pain as it is, perhaps its impact can be reduced.

I don't know where I heard it but:

Pain is inevitable. Suffering is optional.

Or words to that effect.