Comparing The Pleasure of A Great Physicist Making A Discovery To The Pleasure of A Lion Eating A Lamb

We are now requiring that new registrants confirm their request for an account by email.  Once you complete the "Sign Up" process to set up your user name and password, please send an email to the New Accounts Administator to obtain new account approval.

Regularly Checking In On A Small Screen Device? Bookmark THIS page!
    Quote from Cassius

    To me, when you drill down and realize that for an individual some pleasures are much "greater" than others in terms of intensity, duration, and parts of the body affected, you see clearly that some specific pleasures are much more desirable to you than others. All pleasure is pleasure because it is desirable, but all pleasures are not the same in every respect to all people at all times, or even to the same person at different times, and therefore as to specific characteristics, some pleasurable experiences can be more pleasurable (more intense, longer lasting, or affecting more parts of the body) than others.

    Right. We're making an assumption that the discovery of the scientist and the meal of the predator make each enjoy maximum pleasure. In as much as they are both mammals, with a common ancestor, the experiences would be equivalent as pleasure is pleasure.

    Certainly, we can't demonstrate this scientifically as the scientist would have to hold off his discovery until we can get him in an MRI and getting the lion in the MRI presents obvious difficulties. :D

    We're making assumptions in as much as we are doing philosophy here not science. ;)

    Quote from Cassius

    To me, when you drill down and realize that for an individual some pleasures are much "greater" than others in terms of intensity, duration, and parts of the body affected, you see clearly that some specific pleasures are much more desirable to you than others. All pleasure is pleasure because it is desirable, but all pleasures are not the same in every respect to all people at all times, or even to the same person at different times, and therefore as to specific characteristics, some pleasurable experiences can be more pleasurable (more intense, longer lasting, or affecting more parts of the body) than others.

    Cassius

    I was reading some of the excerpts from #Philodemus, and came across this reference which supports the view that the scale of pleasure depends on the individual and circumstances.

    Quote

    in "On Choices and Avoidances," Philodemus discusses how:

    "Different circumstances and conditions of individuals affect their experience of pleasure" (Col. XII.7-14)

    Patrikios

    Quote from Cassius

    I would think that it would probably be a generality that a physicist would likely consider discovery as generically more pleasurable than many other pleasures, or else one would not choose to be a physicist

    True, but this choice would then be tested by actual experience once the choice has been made. As another example, consider somebody who chooses the law as a profession. Many who make that choice continue in a long and pleasurable career, while others quickly burn out and find something less painful to pursue. And for the ones who remain in the profession, often a process ensues of navigating their way to the most enjoyable way to practice, which may prove to be far different than the practice they initially envisioned.

    In last Sunday's discussion, I posed a question in response to Tau Phi's statement, which is paraphrased here on the site as "That the pleasure of the one might be evaluated as 'greater' than the pleasure of the other. Tau Phi may want to respond, whether this wording of his statement is correct or not. ...Moving on, the question I posed to Tau Phi, and which now I repose and have the opportunity here to give it more lively detail, is the following: ..."Imagine a lion has just killed an antelope and he has settled down to have and enjoy his delicious, bloody, and fleshy meal. And imagine Albert Einstein, the great physicist, having just discovered in the lonely dark of his bedroom, using applied differential geometry, that he had just mathematically described the curvature of space-time. And knowing that this discovery was a revolution in physics, upending two centuries of Newtonian Mechanics."...So, which is the greater pleasure, or more precisely, the 'higher pleasure, that of the lion or that of Albert Einstein?
    Or if this kind of valuation is even possible concerning personal pleasures? ...Does Epicureanism not have a view on this?

    Comparing The Pleasure of A Great Physicist Making A Discovery To The Pleasure of A Lion Eating An Antelope.

    I would like to start by addressing Tau Phi's assertion that "The pleasure of one cannot be evaluated as "greater" than the pleasure of another." I agree with this claim from a subjective perspective, because the lion is sustaining itself and having the pleasure of his bloody, fleshy meal, and is unaware of the profound joy that Albert Einstein experiences when discovering new scientific truths. Similarly, we, as humans, are unable to fathom the extraordinary pleasures that the gods, as Epicurus states, experience in their blissful existence.

    From a third-party perspective—say, that of philosophers like Epicurus, Aristotle, or Plato and from our own experience—we could assert that Einstein's intellectual pleasure in making his groundbreaking discoveries represents a higher form of enjoyment compared to the more instinctual pleasure that a lion derives from devouring the antelope.

    Personally, as someone who enjoys hearty meals like a thick porterhouse steak with potatoes and gravy, now and then, I can appreciate the immense satisfaction the lion finds in its bloody, fleashy feast. While all pleasures are inherently good, I believe that the higher pleasures of the mind—such as tranquility, intellectual fulfillment, and artistic creativity—hold greater value to me than bodily or material pleasures, which by the way, should not be dismissed as they are fundamental to our physical survival and mental, creative activities.

    After enjoying my steak, I often take a walk on a lovely summer evening, allowing my meal to settle. However, just twenty minutes into my walk, my thoughts often drift to a painting I am working on; I find myself engaged in mentally exploring its technical challenges, such as perspective, tonal structure, artistic anatomy, etc., and its artistic application. This shift signifies a transition from a fleeting, material pleasure to a more enduring mental satisfaction. Again, I do not disavow the importance of our physical and material appetites, as many religious and philosophical systems have perpetrated historically on mankind. On the contrary, I enjoy them wholeheartedly when they arrive.

    In my experience though, the enjoyment of physical pleasures tends to be short-lived, prompting me to seek out higher mental pleasures instead, such as reading history, philosophy, making music and art. At this very moment, as I write this post, I am immersed in the kind of intellectual engagement that Epicurus advocated nearly 2,300 years ago, a perspective echoed by other great thinkers throughout history.

    Principal Doctrine, 20

    "The body receives as unlimited time the pleasure's limit; but the mind, grasping the reasons and causes of this pleasure and removing all fears and desires and superstitions, receives as unlimited time, both the pleasure's limit and the tranquility which comes from rational thought."

    I quote here Kochiekoch: "My take on the debate on the thread here is that pleasure is pleasure and the two are of equal value in the moment, but the scientist with his great discovery has the greatest pleasure over time. He gets to enjoy the accolade's as his discovery is confirmed and also gets pleasure from contemplating his discovery. He can use it as well as a springboard for future discoveries and pleasures from that. All consistent with the Epicurean perspective of mental pleasures being superior because they can be enjoyed in the present, past and future."

    I want to reaffirm my agreement with Tau Phi's statement: "The pleasure of one cannot be considered 'greater' than the pleasure of another." However, this statement is valid only from the subjective viewpoints of the Lion and Albert Einstein. From a third-party perspective, it is controversial, if not entirely an untenable assertion, particularly among those who appreciate the pleasures of intellectual, artistic thought, and creation, and who have reflected on their value. In that case, Albert Einstein's pleasure in his scientific discovery represents a longer-lasting mental pleasure, one that can produce further mental pleasures, as it did for Einstein throughout his life, till his death.

    ...Oh, and by the way...I am having sizzling, juicy pork chops with salad for dinner tonight!:)

    Thanks for that post Raphael!

    My first comment is to think about how someone outside our Epicurean analysis community might react to reading that.

    I can imagine an outsider saying: "You mean to tell me he needs to write an essay to explain that the pleasure of artwork is different from the pleasure of eating, and that the pleasures of a great physicist have more impact on wider human affairs than a lion eating lamb? What's up with those guys that they have to write walls of text to say what everyone already understands?"

    That's of course not to be critical of the post, but to say that there are issues going on behind the fact that we are having this discussion that need to be made front and center.

    My outsider might say to me: "Is someone arguing that here is no difference between creating art or exploring physics and eating a steak? is someone arguing that a lion eating a lamb has the same impact on world affairs as a discovery in nuclear fusion? No one i know thinks that way, certainly Epicurus doesn't either, does he?"

    And I would say to my outsider that therein hangs the tale. Epicurus doesn't say that the pleasures of eating and the pleasures of art and discovery are the same, or that one doesn't have more impact on world affairs or produce a greater impact on us individually.

    And my outsider would say, "Then what is the problem?"

    We had a very good followup discussion on this in today's zoom meeting.

    Clearly people are coming at this from different angles, all of which are legitimate. The reaction of some, however, was "I thought this problem was settled," or to the effect that they did not understand why the question exists.

    That was the intent of my followup to Raphael's post. In addition to the on-the-surface question of whether pleasures differ from one another, and in what contexts (if any) it is good Epicureanism to consider that some pleasures are different, better, or more valuable than others, I see a very practical application of this question being as follows:

    Cicero, Plutarch, and many critics, including some "friends," say that Epicurean philosophy leads to the conclusion that the best life for everyone is the equivalent of "playing pushpins" - with pushpins being understood to mean any very simple, very unambitious, very safe, past-time. Is this a correct conclusion? If not, why not? {I trust it is clear that my own answer is a very firm "NO", but just in case lurkers read this in isolation I want the record to be clear.}

    And while "Epicurus didn't do that" may be part of the answer, the full answer needs to be clear, concise, persuasive, and compelling, both philosophically and practically.

    We'll return to this next Sunday and can continue in the meantime here on the forum.

    Cassius, yes, it was a fascinating, passionate discussion last Sunday on Comparing The Pleasure of A Great Physicist Making A Discovery To the Pleasure of a Lion Eating an Antelope. ...Today I have been preparing for my two art workshops, which are filled to the brim with students. Starting Friday, after completing some errands & organizing my studio, I hope to have some time to write down some thoughts on the discussion and post them here. I will see you Sunday at 12:30 pm for the Epicurean Friends Zoom meeting.

    Cassiusand Raphael Raul I'm looking forward to your further contributions. I confess I'm still somewhat mystified on the attention each of you give to this topic. To me, this topic only matters when outsiders are discussing and judging the behavior of others in contrast to what I understand as the Epicurean focus on the subjective sensations of what we feel and think about. What we feel while living our lives of avoiding pain through actions that create pleasure seems to me, all that should matter to us.

    Dave Tamanini

    Harrisburg, PA, USA

    Dave:

    Definitely in the end for each of us what matters is knowing the right answer. But there's a lot of trash to cut through for most of us before getting to that, and to a significant extent - going all the way back to Lucretius and go Epicurus himself, the task of gaining new like-minded friends means "creating" them by lifting the trash away that accumulates around all of us.

    I was relistening to our Emily Austin interview yesterday and she made the point: there is no better way to understand something than to teach it.

    And teaching it requires us to cut through the fog that surrounded it in common culture.

    Again, it was a fascinating and even passionate discussion last Sunday on the topic of "Comparing The Pleasure of A Great Physicist Making A Discovery To the Pleasure of a Lion Eating an Antelope or Lamb." Some people have stated in the threads and the discussion that this topic has already been argued and resolved. This debate is far from being resolved, especially the argument that I am presenting here, which will never be definitively determined and will always be debated in different times and epochs, as it has been throughout history, since the ancient Greeks in the Agora of Athens. My final thoughts on this topic will likely be highly controversial for some and even spark a firestorm of debate, but debate is a good thing.

    For me, the goal of life is Pleasure, but the guide of life is "Reason." Prudence, as Epicurus stated, is even more important than philosophy." Why is that? It is because prudence is the use of Reason to sort out what is best for one. One can live well without having read any philosophy if they have Prudence. If they are Reasonable people, they can sort out among the many choices what is beneficial for their life. I have personally met illiterate country folk with "common sense" as they call it, who have used Prudence (reason) to navigate skillfully through life, and have known highly educated individuals who have made continuous bad choices. It seems that higher education and academic philosophy did not help them; maybe Prudence would have.

    My point here is that with reason we make personal choices, but as a society, "we use reason collectively to decide what is more valuable than other things." Therefore, we make collective "valuations" that may deem one activity "higher" in nature than another, or using another term, "worthier of our time and energy", and seek as a society to promote those worthier activities that we collectively decide are more beneficial to it, such as the study of history, science, philosophy, and the arts over playing pinball, throwing darts in pubs, or watching sitcoms all night. Yes, some individuals have no interest or receive Pleasure from reading history, studying science and philosophy, or composing music and creating paintings. Their pleasures are of the ones mentioned above, and I respect their interests and their pleasures. I also enjoy, in my youth, at times, playing pinball, darts in bars, and watching a sitcom or two. I am dating myself here, but I still enjoy viewing, once in a while, the 1950s sitcom "The HoneyMooners", for relaxation and laughter. ...Laughter is good; it oxygenates the brain.

    As understood, in Epicurean philosophy, there are no objectively higher activities judged collectively as superior, independent of individual experience. Epicurus held that all value—including the value of activities—is grounded in the individual's own feelings of pleasure and pain, not in an external or collective hierarchy. So, this is my criticism of what we know of Epicurean philosophy, as scholars estimate that less than 1% of Epicurus' total written works have survived. And it is possible that on the other 99% of the writings that we do not have, he may have refined this view.

    However, I am not going to fall into the pit of subjectivism and relativism that leads to sophistry by saying that playing pinball, darts in bars, and watching sitcoms all night, though pleasurable, are all equally valuable as reading history, studying science and philosophy, or appreciating art, such as painting, music, and poetry, and all the other intellectual and artistic activities. This subjective vs objective argument is an old debate dating back around 2,300 years to ancient Greece between Socrates and the Sophists. Plato's dialogue that best captures the problem of subjectivism versus objective truths is the "Republic", especially in Books V–VII, where Socrates contrasts the world of changing opinions and appearances (doxa/subjectivism) with the world of immutable, objective knowledge (episteme) accessed through reason.

    Ironically, Epicurus develops a whole philosophical system using proto-scientific ideas that are objectively outside of the larger society's views or understanding. Yet, Epicureans hold that objective valuations cannot be made is a contradiction. Epicurus developed theories of atoms and void, first proposed by Democritus, which were not observable with instruments in his time. These are attempts at objective assertions, scientific assertions, of the world. However, Epicureans maintain that all is subjective, as I was made aware of during our discussion, and objective valuations cannot be made. What Epicureans hold is in contradiction to what Epicurus actually did, which was to attempt to arrive at ideas that he developed through objective reasoning.

    Finally, as Socrates warned, subjectivism can lead to social confusion and chaos. In the West, we are experiencing the consequences of overemphasizing subjectivism and relativism, due to many factors, which have led to confusion and doubt about what a man and a woman are, and that one can become the other by just "identifying" with it (subjectivism), and ignoring what science knows about DNA. Our Western heritage and its values have been slowly evaporating. Values that originated in ancient Greece, such as the use of reason and the development of a non-supernatural view of the world and universe, led to philosophy and science. Suppose we, as a society, do not return to evaluating and recognizing the worth of Western Civilization's Values, especially that of reason and science; in that case, we will face its ultimate disappearance as other, more passionate, radical, belief-based societies demographically and politically overtake it, as is presently happening in Europe today, with dire consequences for it.

    Finally, for me, to restate...the goal of life is Pleasure, but the guide of life is "Reason." Prudence, as Epicurus stated, is even more important than philosophy." For it gives us the ability to guide us to good pleasures. However, the present Epicurean understanding in my mind is limited due to the paucity of Epicurus' own writings, which are considered only 1% of what he wrote. And there seems to be a contradiction between what he attempted to do "objectively" and thus what Epicureans believe, as only "Subjectivity" is possible. Therefore, in my humble opinion, Epicureanism, as understood by Epicureans in our discussion last Sunday, is lacking in evaluating the truly worthy values and activities, such as Albert Einstein's development of the Theory of Relativity, Beethoven's symphonies, and Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings, from what appear to me to be mere distractions, such as darts in bars, pinball, and binging on sitcoms all day.

    Edited once, last by Raphael Raul (September 14, 2025 at 12:22 PM).

    Thank you for that post Raphael! You're covering several things and I expect there will be lots of reactions to different parts.

    I am inclined to want to focus on what I think is a position we share, which is that Epicurean philosophy does not in fact mean that a life of push-pin is as well spent as a life of enthusiastic pursuit of nuclear research and invention. It's because I believe that as well that I campaign against empty use terms such as "absence of pain" which can either be very profound and essential, or a straight road to decadence and disaster, depending on how (and if) one defines them.

    But I think I will start with this one:

    Quote from Raphael Raul

    However, Epicureans maintain that all is subjective, as I was made aware of during our discussion, and objective valuations cannot be made. What Epicureans hold is in contradiction to what Epicurus actually did, which was to attempt to arrive at ideas that he developed through objective reasoning.

    .. because I think you are exactly right to judge Epicureans and the Epicureans according to the active and engaged lives that they lived, and not according to the head-in-the-sand isolationism which is held up today as the Epicurean ideal.

    But the real heart of the question is the role of pleasure vs reason as the guide. I gather you're concerned that it is a problem to hold reason to be a "tool" for happiness, rather than a guide toward happiness. I think the answer to that concern is found in pursuing the same line of thinking that leads you to conclude that a life of pushpins is unacceptable to you.

    The ultimate issue is that "reason" alone cannot give you the answer to the question of what you "should" do without first calculating the reasonable course in relation to a goal. And only pleasure and pain can ultimately determine whether a goal is worth pursuing. No amount of reasoning can deliver the positive emotional response that you are looking for in what you are considering to be worthy goals. Only the feeling of pleasure and pain can sort out those questions in the ultimate sense. Yes we must employ reason so we can project the results of our actions based on experience, but no amount of calculation can tell us whether our goals are worth pursuing or not.

    That's what I think you are hearing in those who, like Lucretius, are calling "divine pleasure the guide of life." As a guide pleasure does not reject the use of reason or friendship or virtue or any other tool toward reaching the goal, but a perspective that places "nature" firmly in the driver's seat as to what to pursue and what to avoid has to acknowledge that by nature there is only pleasure and pain as feelings of guidance.

    There's of course a lot more to say and I am sure others will say it better, but I think your reaction that you see a problem is much more to be appreciated than a reaction that some might have to the effect that "i'm ok with pushpins as long as I never suffer a moment of pain!" :) That attitude is NOT Epicurean.

    Good evening, Cassius. I hope you had a good dinner.
    Thank you for your thoughtful reply to my post.
    I am clarifying this statement you wrote in your post.

    "But the real heart of the question is the role of Pleasure vs reason as the guide. I gather you're concerned that it is a problem to hold reason to be a "tool" for happiness, rather than a guide toward happiness."

    I just wanted to clarify that
    ...I hold that the goal of life is Pleasure, but the guide of life is "Reason."
    I hold that reason is the tool that guides the Pleasure that we are experiencing, not the other way around.

    For example, pleasures come, while eating or drinking, let's say, and while one eats and drinks, one may desire to eat and drink past a reasonable limit. Thus, a reasonable person employs "reason" to decide, "No, I will stop eating and drinking now, because if I continue, I will get drunk and have indigestion later.
    So yes, we feel Pleasure, and those pleasures can be good or bad if we do not use reason to decide how far or how much Pleasure we should have.

    However, the main argument concerns the almost total subject view that all members held at last Sunday's discussion. The idea that all is subjective and that there is no objectivity possible in making societal valuations.

    I am looking forward to tomorrow's Sunday Epicurean discussion.
    It is one of the highlights of my Sunday!!!
    As well as playing chess with Tau Phi after the discussion.

    Good night...

    Quote from Raphael Raul

    I hold that reason is the tool that guides the Pleasure that we are experiencing, not the other way around. For example, pleasures come, while eating or drinking, let's say, and while one eats and drinks, one may desire to eat and drink past a reasonable limit. Thus, a reasonable person employs "reason" to decide, "No, I will stop eating and drinking now, because if I continue, I will get drunk and have indigestion later. So yes, we feel Pleasure, and those pleasures can be good or bad if we do not use reason to decide how far or how much Pleasure we should have.

    The question of the proper order of priority is why according to Diogenes Laertius Epicurus held that:

    "Logic they reject as misleading. For they say it is sufficient for physicists to be guided by what things say of themselves. Thus in The Canon Epicurus says that the tests of truth are the sensations and concepts and the feelings.... Nor is there anything which can refute the sensations. For a similar sensation cannot refute a similar because it is equivalent in validity, nor a dissimilar a dissimilar, for the objects of which they are the criteria are not the same; nor again can reason, for all reason is dependent upon sensations; .... And seeing and hearing are as much facts as feeling pain.

    In your examples, the only factor that makes reason useful is that the feeling of pleasure and pain consistently report certain conditions as desirable and others as undesirable. It is not possible through formula and logical assertions alone to conclude that apple pie is good or bad. One piece is frequently good; ten pieces in a row are frequently bad. It is the fact of the result producing pain that we store in memory and retrieve to conclude through reasoning that we should stop after eating one piece. Reasoning is the mechanism through which we predict the future, but it was the original feelings that were gathered by memory and reason that led us to assert the rule of thumb as to how much to eat. And even that rule of thumb remains dependent on circumstances. Five pieces of apple pie in a row would ordinarily create pain, but if you have been starving in a desert for weeks. even more than five pieces may still be enjoyable. Reason is certainly a valuable tool, but circumstances change, and in order of priority pleasure and pain of actual people in actual life take precedence. In Jefferson's phrase, "the earth belongs to the living."

    Quote from Raphael Raul

    However, the main argument concerns the almost total subject view that all members held at last Sunday's discussion. The idea that all is subjective and that there is no objectivity possible in making societal valuations.

    The goal of establishing the validity and necessity of "objectivity" is exactly what Epicurean canonics is all about, and no one establishes and defends objectivity better than Epicurus. The question is finding a true and real basis for objectivity, one which does not require made-up gods or standards of certainty that are logically impossible to achieve. What you are looking for in rejecting total subjectivism is exactly what Epicurus is doing.

    It is Plato and the Stoics (including Cicero in our current discussions) who are the relativists and subjectivists. They assert groundless speculation about eternal virtues and forms as the real truth, but in fact their standards of truth do not exist. There are no eternal standards of right and wrong or laws that apply to all people at all places at all times.

    This is where Epicurus saw that it is impossible to live successfully without a proper standard of what is true and real. Although there are no eternal forms or virtues, nature does exist with regularity that is predictable, and that regularity is how we deduce that there are some things that are regularly and even eternally the same in the nature of the atoms and the void. It is Epicurus who properly establishes that some things that are eternal and reliable do exist, and from that eternal nature we observe that nature has given us the feelings of pleasure and pain. We can use reasoning to help us understand the validity of following pleasure and avoiding pain, but in reality nature tells us directly through feeling, and we cannot override what nature gives us. Pleasure and pain are just as real to us as seeing of hearing or touching, no matter how we may try to reason ourselves into believing otherwise.

    So Epicurus is not being inconsistent in (1) placing the guidance of nature through pleasure and pain above reason, while at the same time (2) saying that the wise man is going to conduct all his affairs throughout his life using reason. The two go hand in hand, but it is not reason that allows us to experience pleasure and avoid pain, but pleasure and pain which instruct reason on how to employ itself.

Unread Threads

    1. Title
    2. Replies
    3. Last Reply

    2. Immutability of Epicurean school in ancient times 15

      • TauPhi
      • September 10, 2025 at 7:08 AM
    3. Replies
      15
      Views
      5.5k
      15

    4. Cassius

      September 10, 2025 at 7:08 AM

    2. Boris Nikolsky - Article On His Interest in Classical Philosophy (Original In Russian) 1

      • Cassius
      • September 8, 2025 at 10:37 AM
    3. Replies
      1
      Views
      2.8k
      1

    4. Cassius

      September 8, 2025 at 10:37 AM

    2. Boris Nikolsky's 2023 Summary Of His Thesis About Epicurus On Pleasure (From "Knife" Magazine)

      • Cassius
      • September 6, 2025 at 5:32 PM
    3. Replies
      0
      Views
      1.9k

    2. Edward Abbey - My Favorite Quotes 4

      • Joshua
      • August 31, 2025 at 1:02 PM
    3. Replies
      4
      Views
      6.2k
      4

    4. SillyApe

      August 31, 2025 at 1:02 PM

    2. A Question About Hobbes From Facebook

      • Cassius
      • August 24, 2025 at 9:11 AM
    3. Replies
      0
      Views
      2.6k

Finding Things At EpicureanFriends.com

What's the best strategy for finding things on EpicureanFriends.com? Here's a suggested search strategy:

  • First, familiarize yourself with the list of forums. The best way to find threads related to a particular topic is to look in the relevant forum. Over the years most people have tried to start threads according to forum topic, and we regularly move threads from our "general discussion" area over to forums with more descriptive titles.
  • Use the "Search" facility at the top right of every page. Note that the search box asks you what section of the forum you'd like to search. If you don't know, select "Everywhere." Also check the "Search Assistance" page.
  • Use the "Tag" facility, starting with the "Key Tags By Topic" in the right hand navigation pane, or using the "Search By Tag" page, or the "Tag Overview" page which contains a list of all tags alphabetically. We curate the available tags to keep them to a manageable number that is descriptive of frequently-searched topics.