This thread is for discussion of the post
Discussion of the thread - Against Katastematic Supremacy - Pleasure Is A Unified Whole And Not A House Divided - Forum Editorial Policy
-
-
I have trouble understanding that explanation of policy. It seems overly rigid.Certainly a person can feel katastematic pleasure over longer periods of time than physical pleasure. Can we agree to that? No one can actually feel physical pleasure over a prolonged time period, but we can't feel prolonged physical contentment I.e.the absence any mental discomfort for a prolonged period. After all, physical pain and discomfort are crucial bodily mechanisms to maintaining good health. So why is it unreasonable to distinguish the two forms of pleasure just within those distinctions?
-
Certainly a person can feel katastematic pleasure over longer periods of time than physical pleasure. Can we agree to that?
And interestingly, no - we can't even agree to that.. The "experts" themselves are all over the board as to what pleasures really fall within katastematic and kinetic in the first place. I have been going through the Kelly Arenson book today and she - who like Emily Austin largely if not fully agrees with the fundamentals of the Gosling & Taylor and Nikolsky position cited in my article - has a very different interpretation than I have seen before.
So no - other than the flat statement that Diogenes Laertius records Epicurus himself having said, there is very little if anything we can agree on with certainty as to anything about the meaning of "katastematic" or "kinetic" or the implications of those terms.
On the other hand, there is much we can agree on about pleasure. And while the katastematic-kinetic debate occupies some for another 2000 years, normal people need a fundamental understanding of Epicurus that focuses on pleasure as the category that defines the goal.
After all, physical pain and discomfort are crucial bodily mechanisms to maintaining good health. So why is it unreasonable to distinguish the two forms of pleasure just within those distinctions?
It is not unreasonable at all to distinguish pleasures in terms of how long they last, what parts of the body they effect, and how intense they are? What is necessary about adding on words like "kinetic" and "katastematic" on top of that which Epicurus himself did not include in PD09?
-
Dave - You wrote:
.Certainly a person can feel katastematic pleasure over longer periods of time than physical pleasure. Can we agree to that?
it appears to me that we can include among those who would not agree with that Professor Kelly Aronsen in her 2019 Health and Hedonism in Plato and Epicurus. There, Aronsen parses kinetic vs. katastematic entirely differently from the mental vs physical your question implies:
Quote from Kelly AronsenContrary to the dominant scholarly view, I argue that there is good reason to avoid classifying non-restorative pleasures as kinetic since they are not derived from movements toward painless, healthy functioning. In this chapter I contend that pleasures from taste, sex, sound, etc., are painless in themselves and are therefore katastematic; no matter whether they occur in the midst of pain (such as when we enjoy tasty food when hungry) or are isolated from pain (when we enjoy dessert after filling up on dinner), they are perceptions of the painless workings of the organism.
I don't write this to encourage us to spend more time looking for classical scholars to take sides with on the meaning of kinetic and katastametic. Nor should we throw up our hands and conclude that Epicurean philosophy is hopeless because we've lost so many texts. The right way forward for virtually everyone is to focus on the basics as it is clear that Lucretius, Diogenes of Oinoanda, Diogenes Laertius, and the general ancient world understood him. And it seems clear that they saw Epicurus as embracing pleasures of both types - pleasures of action or pleasures of state or whatever those words mean - and choosing among those pleasures by applying a a common sense analysis of whether they will bring us more pleasure or more pain.
-
embracing pleasures of both types - pleasures of action or pleasures of state or whatever those words mean - and choosing among those pleasures by applying a a common sense analysis of whether they will bring us more pleasure or more pain.
This seems to me to be a balanced and common-sense approach.
I didn’t read the policy thread as forbidding any and all discussion of kinetic/katastematic pleasure (or aponia/atarxia). They’ve been batted around on here since I’ve been here – often helpfully.
But it seems as if the various arguments (using that word in a technical, not a pejorative sense) about trying to parse strict distinctions are unlikely to ever be settled to any general satisfaction.
But pleasure (broadly construed) as the guiding foundation – as opposed to, say, only ataraxia for the Pyrrhonians – and a common sense estimation of pleasure/pain outcomes, is settled (for Epicureans). And feelings of satisfaction or contentment are just also pleasures (and, perhaps contra Aronsen, as you’ve quoted her, I think the Cyrenaics would have seen them as “kinetic” as well).
As for duration: Is taking the time to enjoy the pleasure of tasting good food (instead of scarfing it down) necessarily of less duration than moments of satisfaction in between bites? Or perhaps a few moments of contentment after a meal – before delving into that novel you’ve been reading? And then perhaps taking a bit of time to rest your eyes between chapters? I suspect it’s all rather fluid – and that attempts to decide some relative “superiority” are generally misguided (e.g., the Cyrenaics on the one hand, and the Pyrrhonians on the other – Epicurus seems more balanced).
-
Pacatus i think your post does a good job of summarizing where we need to be.
I didn’t read the policy thread as forbidding any and all discussion of kinetic/katastematic pleasure (or aponia/ataraxia). They’ve been batted around on here since I’ve been here – often helpfully.
Correct. These terms and questions can be discussed without advocacy of the opposing position, and the very existence of the controversy is an "elephant in the room" that cannot be made to go away by ignoring it. I expect to write many additional posts and articles that address the issue from the "pleasure is the supreme good / pleasure is a very wide concept perspective, and I hope others will too. We can also have "private" discussions that do not affect the publicly-viewable flow of the site and distract from its central message.
But it seems as if the various arguments (using that word in a technical, not a pejorative sense) about trying to parse strict distinctions are unlikely to ever be settled to any general satisfaction.
And that is probably the most important point. There will never be universal agreement on these points, even among those of us who devote extensive time to reading about Epicurus. In my own mind I come back over and over to the scenes in the "Agora" movie about Hypatia, where the Platonic-like philosophers were consumed in their disputes about astronomy and geometry while their world was collapsing around them outside their doors. There's a time and a place for everything, but these are not the times nor is this the place to allow the focus of the site to be distracted away from central issues.
I don't think anyone on this website is an ascetic or even a minimalist at heart or views "pleasure" or even "desire" with suspicion. And yet those attitudes and perspectives have embedded themselves into Epicurean discourse, largely through this dispute that somehow "katastematic" pleasure is superior and different to pleasure itself.
I haven't recently referenced Elayne's article from 2019 but it continues to be a good non-technical discussion of the issues:
-
Cassius Pacatus I suppose I above posted more for my personal application of Epicurus' doctrines to my everyday life. My life observations myself, and of other people are the source of the questions I raised.
I have no quarrel with the Forum's guidelines as Cassius formulated them. I believe you both implied, the way we adopt and apply the doctrines for ourselves is always a matter of choice based on our own ability to independently reason out our lifestyle choices.
Respecting the man, and Epicurus' mind, is what the Forum is dedicated to, right? I usually enjoy all the posts, and have no ax to grind, in either direction when it comes to interpreting or commenting on Epicurus. Always the student, me.
-
Respecting the man, and Epicurus' mind, is what the Forum is dedicated to, right
That's one way of looking at it, maybe like there is more than one way to view pleasure.
Yes if we respect Epicurus' mind and person, as Lucretius did for example, that's a good guardrail. But just like Epicurus himself as a real person, we all have to live day to day and focus on the most important issues, just as he wrote in the letter to Herodotus about not always needing to know the details but always returning to the headings.
So I would say the real idea is to focus more on the importance of the core ideas which are needed all the time (true views of gods, death, pleasure as the goal, pain as manageable) and only after those are firmly established as the organizational principles would we be prudent to be spending much time on secondary issues.
Of course its tricky - advocacy that Epicurus had a goal other than pleasure is not a secondary issue at all. That takes us back to Pacatus' observation that we will never have consensus on some things. If we are going to buiod content and community on the view that pleasure is the goal, there has to be a limit on advocacy that undercuts that.
-
Many thanks for posting that essay by Elayne! I read it some years back, but what a pleasure to reread it – and a great reminder! (I actually just put the link on my wall as a reminder.)
-
I don’t know if that word pleasure (and pain as well) scares people. Or if some adverse reaction stems from years of social enculturation and “programming” (e.g., from family, religion, education).* Or if they just don’t understand the breadth of Epicurus' application of those terms. Or maybe some people (especially in academia) feel easier parsing the Greek and Latin, almost as a deflection from “that word.”** (I recall Emily Austin having to battle with her publisher to get the word in the title of her book. And her introductory chapter on what pleasure is, is excellent.)
Maybe it just takes repetition, and that repetition coming at it from slightly different angles – I think that has been the case for me. And why I go back to reread such as Austin – I’ve read it all twice now (some things thrice), and will likely do so again. I still need that repetition at the basic level; maybe I get a slightly different “angle” on it each time. A process of absorption.
I doubt there are any “magic answers.” And I doubt – given the power and ubiquity of that aforementioned enculturation – we’ll ever be as popular as the Stoics.
Just my ramblings on the questions you raise. Just keep doin’ the good work.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* I had to struggle with that a bit too, even though I had “intellectually” seen through at least most of it. Being here helped with that immensely (even if I’m a slow learner – or just innately stubborn
).** I want to be very, very clear that I see none of the longstanding members here, who do deep research, do it for that reason! It, too, can be a pleasure – as well as valuable for all of us.
-
don’t know if that word pleasure (and pain as well) scares people.
There's absolutely no doubt --most people are scared to death of the term, and they would never want to be associated with a philosophy of pleasure - especially in Academia.
Since there's a lot of criticism of negativity embedded in this discussion I thought I better draft something as an example of what I personally think is a more positive approach to Epicurus. Nothing that people here haven't seen a hundred times before, but again that's the point - we are the tiny minority, and I don't think we should sit back and make no effort to change that by talking about the core issues - WITHOUT lathering it with apologies for pleasure, with appeals to asceticism, minimalism, resignation, withdrawal, or the like. Posting this mainly for X, Facebook, Substack, etc.
-
Just for fun, my illustration of many pleasures:
I may need to update this (which I made back in 2024) and add more subtitles: "pleasures of the mind" (and which can include planning (anticipation), "pleasures of the removal of pain", etc.
-
-
My posting of this earlier in this thread and Pacatus' reminder have in turn reminded me that this is where we were in 2019 - almost seven years ago to the day.
We've come a long way since then - in many ways forward - but we still don't have many articles / posts here that are as on target on this topic as this one. I have now added it to the front page as one of the featured blue buttons to call more attention to it.
-
If katastematic means simply stable and established then say so, and talk in plain terms about how much we value and appreciate things that we have been able to make stable and established in our lives.
I think there is a lot of common ground to be found here!
-------------------------------------------------------
Epicurus cannot conceive of the good without active pleasures, just as we cannot conceive of a brick building without bricks.
You are certainly correct to say that we need bricks to construct brick buildings!
However, it is also clearly true that a single brick -- or even a huge pile of bricks -- is not as good as a whole stable and established brick building.
-------------------------------------------------------
Consider:
(1) The active pleasure of studying and talking with friends.
versus
(2) The stable pleasure of confidence (based on what you have studied), or the stable pleasure of security (based on friends and family).
(1) = the building blocks we use to build
(2) = our established building
-
However, it is also clearly true that a single brick -- or even a huge pile of bricks -- is not as good as a whole stable and established brick building.
That would be exactly the analogy I seek to use with the "full cup" of pleasure and what I take DeWitt's "fullness" argument to mean. Yes you want your life to be 100% pleasure and 0% pain, and you want it to stay that way, neither needlessly below the rim (due to the presence of pain) or sloshing over the rim (causing intrustio of pain due to the sloshing). But no matter what perspective you look at the vessel, what it is full of is real tangible experiential pleasure. Or using the other analogy, when you build a house of bricks you have something more desirable than a pile of bricks, but you would be a fool to then think that you have freed yourself from reliance on bricks. You don't need a greater quantity of bricks when you finish building a house in the same way that you don't need a greater quantity of pleasure when your life is 100% full of plesure.
But who would be such a pinhead or so stupid -- when you have a completed house or a full life of pleasure -- to go on a campaign apologizing for, or talking down, or even outright dismissing, the value of bricks or pleasure???
