New Epicurean Substack: Untroubled

Also (and there are many other arguments) it is not proper to take a single sentence and not consider it in the context of the full analysis of pleasure as to whether it has a limit, which is what Plato had argued in Philebus. The main reason to consider the total removal of all pain to be the limit of pleasure of pleasure is that unless you can logically define a limit for pleasure, pleasure can always be made better by adding more.

The citations from Plato and Seneca that document this argument about pleasure from the opposing side are in the "Full Cup" article here on the site.

Good luck Don. Always good to try when there is any hope of success. Here is a summary of the major arguments that appear scattered in many places on this site:

"Why It Is Incorrect to Say Epicurean Philosophy Is Primarily About 'Absence of Pain'"

Quote

"For this reason we call pleasure the beginning and end of the blessed life. For we recognize pleasure as the first good innate in us, and from pleasure we begin every act of choice and avoidance, and to pleasure we return again, using the feeling as the standard by which we judge every good." -- Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus

The Claim and Why It Matters

The claim that Epicurean philosophy is "primarily about the absence of pain" — that the Epicurean goal is a passive, featureless neutral state free from disturbance — is one of the most consequential misreadings in the history of philosophy. It transforms a vigorous, life-affirming system into something that looks, in practice, indistinguishable from the Stoic, Buddhist, or ascetic counsels that Epicurus directly opposed.

The arguments against this reading are numerous, mutually reinforcing, and grounded in the primary texts. They are collected here in condensed form.

Argument 1: There Are Only Two Feelings — Absence of One Is Presence of the Other

This is the most fundamental argument, and it dissolves the apparent contrast between "pleasure" and "absence of pain" entirely.

• Epicurus taught that Nature has given every living creature exactly two internal feelings: pleasure and pain.
• These two are exhaustive and mutually exclusive — there is no third state between them.
• If pain is absent, pleasure is present — not by convention or definition, but because there are only two options and one of them is gone.
• "Absence of pain" and "presence of pleasure" are therefore two ways of describing the same condition, not two different things.

Quote

"The internal sensations they say are two, pleasure and pain, which occur to every living creature, and the one is akin to nature and the other alien: by means of these two choice and avoidance are determined." -- Diogenes Laertius, Book X, 34

Quote

"Surely anyone who is conscious of his own condition must needs be either in a state of pleasure or in a state of pain." -- Torquatus in Cicero, On Ends 1.38

Quote

"I say that all men who are free from pain are in pleasure, and in the greatest pleasure too." -- Torquatus in Cicero, On Ends 2.16

• The practical consequence: Saying the Epicurean goal is "absence of pain" rather than "pleasure" is like saying the goal is "not being in darkness" rather than "being in light." The two phrases pick out the same state from opposite directions. The choice to emphasize the negative formulation is a rhetorical one, not a philosophical one — and it is a rhetorical choice that consistently misleads general audiences toward passivity and minimalism.

Argument 2: The Letter to Menoeceus Cannot Be Read Through a Single Sentence Torn From Context

The passage most often cited as evidence for the "absence of pain" reading is this one:

Quote

"When we maintain that pleasure is the end, we do not mean the pleasures of profligates and those that consist in sensuality... but freedom from pain in the body and from trouble in the mind." -- Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus

This sentence is real — but reading it in isolation while ignoring everything around it is a fundamental error of method. The Letter to Menoeceus as a whole says the opposite of what the "absence of pain" reading requires:

• The letter opens by stating that philosophy leads to happiness — not tranquility, not absence of pain, but happiness.
• The letter explicitly declares that "pleasure is the beginning and end of the blessed life" and "the first good innate in us."
• The contested passage is not Epicurus saying "I don't mean pleasure; I mean absence of pain." It is Epicurus clarifying that "pleasure" in his usage is broader than physical stimulation of the body — it includes freedom from bodily pain and mental disturbance as genuine pleasures, not as replacements for pleasure.
• The letter closes with the vision of the wise man living "like a god among men" — a life of full positive pleasure, not minimal disturbance.

Reading one sentence against the grain of the entire letter is precisely the kind of selective citation that produces the misreading. The rule applies here as everywhere: a single passage, read in isolation, cannot overturn the consistent testimony of the whole.

Argument 3: Principal Doctrine 3 Is a Targeted Response to a Specific Philosophical Opponent — Not a Summary of Epicurean Ethics

Principal Doctrine 3 states:

Quote

"The magnitude of pleasure reaches its limit in the removal of all that is painful. Wherever pleasure is present, as long as it is there, there is neither pain of body, nor of mind, nor of both at once."

This doctrine has been taken as definitive proof that Epicurus reduced the goal of life to the mere absence of pain. That reading mistakes the context entirely.

• PD3 is the third in a deliberate sequence of responses to the three most powerful ancient arguments used to attack pleasure as the goal of life:
  • PD1 answers the argument from divine punishment: a truly blessed being has no interest in rewarding or punishing humans.
  • PD2 answers the argument from fear of death: death is the end of all sensation, so neither good nor evil follows it.
  • PD3 and PD4 answer the argument from Plato's Philebus: that pleasure cannot be the highest good because it has no limit and therefore can never be complete.
• Plato's challenge was: pleasure can always be increased; it is never finished; a thing that cannot be completed cannot be the highest good.
• Epicurus's answer (PD3): pleasure does have a limit — the limit is reached when all pain is removed, because at that point there is no more pain to displace. The cup is full. What Plato said could never be complete is in fact complete.
• What PD3 is not doing: It is not saying that the content of a good life is merely the absence of pain. It is establishing that the measure of fullness — the philosophical limit that answers Plato — is the removal of pain. The content of the full life remains what Epicurus stated throughout all his writings: the pleasures of taste, hearing, sight, friendship, philosophy, memory, and anticipation.
• The analogy: PD3 tells us the cup is full when it reaches the brim. It says nothing about what fills the cup. Those who read PD3 as defining the Epicurean goal have confused the measurement of fullness with the content being measured.

Argument 4: Epicurus Stated Explicitly What He Could Not Conceive the Good Without

There is no ambiguity about this:

Quote

"I know not how to conceive the good, apart from the pleasures of taste, of sex, of sound, and the pleasures of beautiful form." -- Epicurus, in Diogenes Laertius, Book X

Quote

"For my part I find no meaning which I can attach to what is termed good, if I take away from it the pleasures obtained by taste, if I take away the pleasures which come from listening to music, if I take away too the charm derived by the eyes from the sight of figures in movement, or other pleasures by any of the senses in the whole man." -- Epicurus, as quoted by Cicero, Tusculan Disputations

• These are not the words of a man who thought the good life consisted in a passive neutral state free from disturbance.
• These are the words of a man for whom the positive content of pleasure — vivid, sensory, active, varied — is inseparable from what "good" even means.
• A philosophy whose goal is "primarily absence of pain" would not generate statements like this. A philosophy whose goal is genuine, active, positive pleasure would — and does.

Argument 5: The Ancient Witnesses Are Unanimous That the Goal Is Active, Vivid Pleasure

Both friendly and hostile ancient sources understood Epicurus to be teaching active pleasure, not passive absence of disturbance:

• Torquatus (Cicero's Epicurean spokesman): "Let us imagine a man living in the continuous enjoyment of numerous and vivid pleasures alike of body and of mind, undisturbed either by the presence or by the prospect of pain: what possible state of existence could we describe as being more excellent or more desirable?"
• Diogenes of Oinoanda (carved in stone for all passersby): "I wanted, before being overtaken by death, to compose a fine anthem to celebrate the fullness of pleasure."
• Cicero (a hostile critic, which makes his testimony all the more telling): "[The Epicureans said] that nothing was preferable to a life of tranquility crammed full of pleasures" — the Latin is unambiguous: plena et conferta voluptatibus, a life full and crammed with pleasures.
• Torquatus again: "The wise man is continually in a state of pleasure, and there is in truth no moment at which he does not experience more pleasures than pains."

A philosophy primarily about "absence of pain" would not be described by its ancient advocates and critics alike as a philosophy of numerous, vivid, crammed-full pleasures.

Argument 6: The Friendship Argument — Why "Minimize Pain" Cannot Be the Prime Directive

This argument is practical and penetrating. Frances Wright's A Few Days In Athens captures it clearly:

• Deep friendship is one of the greatest pleasures Epicurus identified.
• Deep friendship inevitably ends in grief for one of the parties — grief that is among the sharpest pains available to human experience.
• A person whose goal was primarily to minimize pain would rationally avoid deep friendship, moderate every attachment, guard against every commitment that might later hurt.
• The Epicurean does the opposite — pursues friendship gladly, deliberately, and without reservation — because the pleasures of shared life, mutual support, and being truly known vastly outweigh the cost of eventual grief.
• The pain of grief is accepted willingly as the price of the pleasure that made it possible.

The conclusion: If "absence of pain" were the prime directive, Epicurus would counsel against deep friendship. He counseled the opposite — calling friendship "the greatest of all the means which wisdom acquires to ensure happiness throughout the whole of life." The Epicurean goal must be stated as the maximum of pleasure, not the minimum of pain. These are not the same thing, and the difference shapes every practical choice.

Argument 7: "The Goal of Life Is Absence of Pain" as a Standalone Phrase Is Liable to Systematic Misinterpretation

Even where the phrase is technically defensible (because of the two-feelings doctrine), it consistently misleads:

• Most people who encounter "the goal is absence of pain" without full context will interpret it as recommending a passive, neutral, featureless state — essentially philosophical nothingness.
• The phrase echoes Buddhist and Stoic counsels of detachment and desire-suppression, and listeners draw exactly that connection — the opposite of the Epicurean position.
• The Epicurean texts warn explicitly against this misuse. The correct approach is to lead with pleasure as the positive goal and introduce the equivalence with "absence of pain" as secondary clarification, not as the primary summary.
• Presenting the Epicurean goal as "absence of pain" to a general audience without full explanation produces a picture of Epicurus as an ascetic minimalist — the precise opposite of what Torquatus described and what Diogenes of Oinoanda carved into stone.

Argument 8: The "Limit" Is Not the Goal — The Full Cup Model

The appropriate analogy (as used in the opening of Lucretius Book Six - is that of a "full cup" or "full vessel" which makes the relevant distinction precisely:

• The limit of pleasure (where pain is fully removed) is the measure of whether the cup is full — it is the criterion of completeness.
• The content of pleasure (the varied, vivid, active pleasures that fill the cup) is what the good life actually consists of.
• Confusing the measure of fullness with the content is like saying a feast is "primarily about not being hungry." Not being hungry is what a completed feast achieves — but the feast consists of food, company, and enjoyment, not of the absence of hunger.
• The full cup cannot be made fuller — but it is full, not empty.

Quote

"[T]he Epicureans said that nothing was preferable to a life of tranquility crammed full of pleasures." -- Cicero, In Defense of Publius Sestius 10.23

A crammed-full cup is not a description of an "absence of pain" philosophy. It is the description of a philosophy of positive, active, abundant pleasure — guided by reason to ensure the cup is sound and the pleasures genuine.

Argument 9: The Three Distorting Traditions That Produced This Reading

The "absence of pain" reading did not arise from careful study of the full panoply of available texts. It arose from three cultural filters that have operated on Epicurus for centuries, all pushing in the same direction:

• The Stoic filter: Stoics found it useful to read Epicurus as a failed Stoic — someone whose ataraxia was essentially Stoic apatheia in different language. Domesticating Epicurus as a philosopher of tranquility served the Stoic agenda.
• The religious filter: For traditions that regard pleasure as morally suspect, reading Epicurus as a philosopher of inner peace (rather than pleasure) makes him theologically more comfortable. The cost is misreading him.
• The Humanist filter: Modern Humanism's emphasis on rational self-restraint and the subordination of appetite to principle makes the "tranquility" reading of Epicurus more acceptable than his actual teaching. Again, comfort is purchased at the price of accuracy.

All three filters consistently distort the reading of Epicurus in the same direction: away from pleasure (which sounds too bodily, too individual) and toward tranquility (which sounds elevated and dignified). All three produce an Epicurus who is no longer recognizably Epicurean.

Summary: What the Texts Actually Say

Conclusion

Saying that Epicurean philosophy is "primarily about the absence of pain" is wrong in multiple independent ways simultaneously:

1. It violates the two-feelings doctrine — absence of pain simply is pleasure.
2. It reads a single clause of the Letter to Menoeceus against the plain meaning of the whole letter.
3. It treats PD3 as a summary of Epicurean ethics when it is a targeted response to a specific philosophical opponent.
4. It contradicts Epicurus's own explicit statements about what he could not conceive the good without.
5. It is flatly contradicted by every ancient witness, friendly and hostile alike.
6. It produces practical counsel (minimize attachments, avoid risk of grief) that Epicurus explicitly rejected.
7. It misleads general audiences by suggesting something like Buddhist or Stoic detachment — the precise opposite of what Epicurus taught.

The Epicurean goal is a life full of positive pleasure — crammed full, as the ancient testimony puts it — pursued wisely so that the pleasures are real, lasting, and uncontaminated by the greater pains that foolish pursuit would bring. Absence of pain describes the same state from the negative side, because where pain ends, pleasure begins — but this logical equivalence should never be mistaken for an endorsement of the empty cup over the full one.

The goal is fullness. Not emptiness.

So I can keep track of it I have added an easier-to-read format of it here, This is the version I will be updating going forward: