Episode 295 - Plutarch's Absurd Interpretation of Epicurean Absence of Pain

Quote from Rolf

my imagining of that scenario probably says more about what absence of pain looks like to me than an objective path to such. I do lean a little more Dude than Caesar

I do lean a little more Dude than Caesar

It seems like perspectives on the best life are like a pendulum, swinging from one extreme to the other, at least in terms of mass popularity. But both ends of the swing have their place, and the pendulum doesn't stay in balance and keep swinging without both.

Probably could create a "sorites" question about a pendulum by stopping it with your hand and asking "At what point on it's path is the string and the weight acting as a pendulum?" You can isolate points all day long but no single point on the path of the pendulum captures what it means to be a pendulum.

You know something else i would add to this argument harks back to what Plutarch cited. In arguing that the animals do not stop activity after they are no longer hungry or thirsty, but proceed to play and fly and swim and engage in other activities solely for enjoyment, Plutarch reminds us of Epicurus' core argument. Epicurus takes as the gold standard what the young of all species do before they are corrupted. And while there are many statements about absence of pain that are regularly twisted to imply that we are different, and we as humans should go comatose after we reach a subsistence level of "absence of pain," I am not aware of many surviving statements for the reverse position. The major one I can recall is that of Torquatus in On Ends where "Looking to the young of all species" is specifically stated to be Epicurus' proof that pleasure is by Nature desirable.

Given that we can all see that the young of all species engage in play, and that Epicurus would have seen the same thing, yet Epicurus never said that he would reject "play" from life, this seems to me a strong argument against the Plutarch "absence of pain is a stated of anesthesia" position. If Epicurus had meant for us to reject the "play" of young animals, he would have said so specifically and not used their conduct as the basis of his philosophy.

Is anyone aware of other less familiar citations that we can use to bolster this argument (the young of all species pursue active pleasures and therefore so should we) beyond Torquatus?

Quote

Epicurus places this standard in pleasure, which he lays down to be the supreme good, while pain is the supreme evil; and he founds his proof of this on the following considerations.

[30] Every creature, as soon as it is born, seeks after pleasure and delights therein as in its supreme good, while it recoils from pain as its supreme evil, and banishes that, so far as it can, from its own presence, and this it does while still uncorrupted, and while nature herself prompts unbiased and unaffected decisions. So he says we need no reasoning or debate to shew why pleasure is matter for desire, pain for aversion.

Quote from Rolf

it seems as if “absence of pain” as a concept denoting the limit of pleasure is primarily intended as proof that a life of consistent pleasure is possible and attainable. If pleasure had no limit, then we’d constantly be trying to fill our bottomless cup.

Since that is the analogy that is explicitly stated at the opening of Lucretius Book 6, I think you are on firm ground:

Quote from Lucretius Book 6 - Bailey

he then did understand that it was the vessel itself which wrought the disease, and that by its disease all things were corrupted within, whatsoever came into it gathered from without, yea even blessings; in part because he saw that it was leaking and full of holes, so that by no means could it ever be filled; in part because he perceived that it tainted as with a foul savor all things within it, which it had taken in.

also:

Quote from Rolf

As I’m writing this it doesn’t seem as clear to me as it did in my head… This seemingly simple topic makes me head spin!

What you wrote is very clear and makes complete sense. When you see that the vessel has a limit then you see that it can be filled. The problem comes in trying to stretch the analogy too far. Analogizing an Epicurean-inspired life to a well-formed jar solves the false allegation that a life of pleasure can never be complete, but it does not answer the question of what kind of pleasure you should use to fill your jar.

If any pleasure would do, what about the pleasure of thinking that god directs your life so that everything works together for good if you love the lord, or the pleasure of thinking that you will be lifted to heaven when you die? It is undeniable that those thoughts can be pleasurable too -- are you going to fill your jar with those kinds of pleasures?

The answer is "no," and while the vessel analogy can still be used to an extent (maybe you can say that those pleasures evaporate so the jar doesn't stay full) the vessel analogy can't fulfill every need for explanation of the issues.

This wouldn't be a problem except for those who want to suggest that "absence of pain" is a specific pleasure in itself. It is impossible to name such a pleasure, because all pleasures and pains are discrete experiences, and "absence of anything" doesn't describe a specific experience. Absence of a heap of sand doesn't tell you anything about what IS at the location you are discussing. Absence of pain tells you that pleasure is there, but ONLY because you have previously identified that whenever pain is absent, what is in that location is some form of pleasure. But you aren't stating what kind of pleasure is present without going into further detail, and if anyone wants to suggest that all pleasures are exactly the same then they are speaking nonsense. That's ust like Epicurus describes (in the letter to Menoeceus) the man who says that it is better to never be born, or rush to death. Such a man is talking lies or nonsense, because he could easily end is life if that is what he really thought.