Posts by Godfrey

Going back to Matteng 's post and Cassius ' response... The reasoning behind pleasure as the goal is that we are embodied human beings, and pleasure and pain are our guidance system. If a hypothetical removes or bypasses that constraint then the hypothetical serves no purpose for us. As long as it maintains that constraint then it may be worth our time and energy to ponder it.

Kalosyni I agree with your thoughts on these points, that we each are the sole arbiter of the concepts expressed by these words. "Meaningful" is a particular problematic word, for me, as it implies some vague universal standard which, as we know, is a fantasy.

There is a chapter in the book titled "Overcoming Barriers to Pleasure", which may pertain somewhat. However the book is primarily about the science of healthy pleasures and as such doesn't fully address the philosophy of Epicurus. It's a parallel set of ideas, and it's up to us practicing Epicureans (and TauPhi *) to determine it's relevance for ourselves.

All in all though, I think it's worth reading and/or discussing.

*with the utmost respect

I just noticed my typo: the book is titled Healthy Hedonism. It's not Health Hedonism; mea culpa.

Funny thing, I've been reading Healthy Hedonism: Why feeling good Is good for you! by Erica Oberg.

It's not a philosophical book but rather an argument for pursuing pleasure in various areas of one's life. Some quotes that may be of interest:

The ancient Greeks, particularly the Epicureans, understood hedonism as an intentional and balanced pursuit of pleasure. They recognized that sustainable pleasure requires both wisdom and moderation. Their philosophical framework emphasized the relationship between pleasure and virtue, suggesting that genuine satisfaction arises from choices that align with personal values and ethical principles. This perspective counters the modern tendency to equate pleasure with excess, reminding us that true joy comes not from fleeting highs but from habits that support long- term well- being. Health isn’t just about the absence of disease. It is about the presence of joy and the ability to embrace life’s pleasures in a way that enhances vitality rather than diminishes it. Contemporary psychological research has validated this perspective as well, showing that activities consonant with core values provide more profound and lasting satisfaction than purely sensory experiences. In other words, pleasure that aligns with your values, whether through connection, creativity, or self- care, contributes not only to shortterm happiness but also to your overall sense of purpose and vitality. Rather than viewing pleasure as a reward to be earned through suffering, you can recognize it as an essential aspect of human experience that, when integrated thoughtfully, enhances rather than compromises health and well- being.

The interplay between pleasure and pain profoundly influences how you handle life’s challenges and recover from difficulties. While many people try to avoid all discomfort, understanding the complementary nature of these experiences reveals an important truth: some degree of challenge often enhances your appreciation of positive moments. For example, the satisfaction of completing a difficult project or mastering a new skill feels particularly sweet precisely because of the effort required. Your nervous system naturally learns from both pleasant and challenging experiences, using each as a reference point for future situations. After facing and overcoming moderate stress, you often discover an enhanced capacity for enjoying positive experiences. Consider how a challenging hike makes the view from the summit more rewarding or how working through a difficult conversation can deepen a relationship. These experiences demonstrate how temporary discomfort can lead to more meaningful satisfaction.

Learning to accept temporary discomfort while working toward meaningful goals marks an important aspect of personal growth. This ability develops gradually through experiences that show you the connection between effort and reward. Each time you persist through a challenge and reach your goal, you build confidence in your capacity to handle future difficulties. This growing resilience makes it easier to embrace both the pleasant and challenging aspects of pursuing what matters to you.

Science makes clear that pleasure is more than mere indulgence, but also provides essential support for physical health, emotional resilience, and cognitive function. Armed with this understanding, you can approach the pursuit of hedonism not as a guilty pleasure but as a legitimate guiding principle to create a balanced, joyful, healthy life.

I think that these are the most directly applicable quotes for our purposes. I'm only about a quarter of the way through the book, but I couldn't resist adding it to this thread... even though it should probably be moved elsewhere. So far, I'd recommend the book to anyone who's into good health through pursuing pleasure. Originally, I assumed this would be another book that offered a modern interpretation of Epicurean ideas without any acknowledgement, so discovering these quotes made me smile. She doesn't profess to be an Epicurean but she seems to me to know the subject pretty well.

Quote

From "Was Odysseus actually a hero? What classicists say most people get wrong about the Odyssey" by Candida Moss. Published July 17, 2026

Concluding paragraphs:

The reason for our confusion about Odysseus’s character comes down to changing definitions of what it means to be a hero. While the Odyssey has its villains—like the suitor Antinous—its heroes are not unambiguously good. Park pointed out that a Greek hero was just “a famous male mortal from the mythic past.” Martin and Christensen added that it’s not clear that ancient Greeks thought their heroes were good. Christensen notes that the Greek tragedians of the fifth century BCE emphasize Odysseus’s more villainous qualities and present him as a smooth-talking aristocrat with sketchy motives.

Part of the reason why we think of Odysseus as a role model, said Christensen, is down to the Roman Stoics. “In the writings of Seneca and Cicero, Odysseus becomes valued for his ability to resist temptation, to endure suffering and to stay true to his mission.” The reason for this is that the Romans—much like many modern readers—weren’t reading the whole Odyssey. “They sample parts of it in education, where they would read sections of the Odyssey as part of their education in school and in preparing speeches.” Otherwise, Christensen joked, they are just sort of “vibing” through it.

Odysseus enters Christian tradition through Boethius, who makes him a model for resisting the Sirens. “Which is nonsense,” Christensen added, “because he wasn’t trying to resist them. Odysseus was tied to the mast. He set up a situation where he couldn’t go to them.” From there, Odysseus increasingly became a Christ-like figure, reimagined as, at worst, a flawed but fundamentally virtuous hero. You can still hear echoes of this Christian Odysseus in the Mumford and Sons song “The Cave,” said Christensen.

When it comes to the message of the Odyssey, Christensen, sees it as a story about trauma, survival, and discovering oneself in your relationships with family and friends. Odysseus himself is less a saint than an antihero—a Walter White, Tony Soprano, or Batman figure. “Odysseus, Achilles, and everyone from the age of heroes are both what we should emulate and what we should avoid.”

Display More

There is a recent article in National Geographic that's in a similar vein, but I believe it's behind a pay wall.

As I recall, vaguely, the author got in a nice dig at the Stoics and what they thought of it. I'll see if I can find that.

Happy Twentieth to all!

Quote from Cassius

pinhead

I haven't heard that word in quite some time... especially in a philosophical discussion

Quote from Patrikios

Is it wrong to pursue both kinetic and katastemic pleasures, especially the katastemic pleasures one feels when deeply studying and grasping some deep Epicurean concept?

PD09 If every pleasure were condensed and were present at the same time and in the whole of one's nature or its primary parts, then the pleasures would never differ from one another. Saint-Andre translation

Another chance to get on my intensity/duration/location (ILD) soapbox

If you look at katastematic and kinetic pleasures in this framework then, at least to me, k vs k becomes simply a matter of duration. This, then, is one of three variables to consider when evaluating which pleasures or desires you might want to pursue.

Studying, for instance, may provide a long-lasting feeling of pleasure if the material resonates with you... or not. Eating a rich dark chocolate cupcake might provide a brief, intense pleasure for you. You decide what's important for you. Studying might result in a deep feeling of gratification, the cupcake might trigger a feeling of guilt... or not.

Quote from Max DuBoff

I don't think there's any way for katastematic pleasure to have intensity, because if so it couldn't be perfect at every moment (we could always imagine that it could be a bit more intense

This is an intriguing comment!

A pleasure with no intensity would, to me, describe a neutral state, which of course doesn't exist for Epicurus in the pleasure/pain relationship. This is why I prefer "complete" to "perfect". To my understanding a pleasure or pain requires all three components of intensity, location and duration: if any one of these doesn't apply, how can a pleasure or pain be experienced? Further, to my way of thinking a katastematic pleasure can vary in intensity, say from contentment to joy.

On a related note, I'm not clear as to what constitutes a bodily katastematic pleasure. Or possibly any katastematic pleasure.... It would seem to me to be a matter of duration, of being "lasting". This gets into the squishy question of what is meant by "lasting". Eternal? Being around longer than most pleasures? Persisting regardless of any external circumstances or new information?

Being now a "senior citizen", it's become quite apparent to me that all bodily pleasures and pains come and go. This is the lens through which I view bodily katastematic feelings with suspicion, but of course it may have nothing to do with that I suppose. Does it have to to with a material world in which everything is ultimately physical?

Quote from Max DuBoff

But why is tranquility the pleasure that confers a blessed life? Epicurus, like many Greek philosophers, thinks that a good life is a perfect life (pantelēs; PD 20, 21; Pyth. 116). It's not clear to me exactly why he holds this assumption (very curious for your thoughts; I think this is one of the big puzzles of his ethics, for which we don't have extant sources). "Perfect" in this sense means "not able to be made better, in the respect in which it's good." But pleasure fits a bit awkwardly with this assumption.

Quote from wbernys

Someone feeling perpetual joy or delight is not in any way inferior or superior to feeling constant Serenity or Tranquility. Both are equally Pleaseant. Kinetic and Katastematic pleasures are variations of pleasure. Pretty sure this is Austin's view and Gosling and Taylor's as well. They are variations of the same condition, Epicurus recognized this variation (Dissgreeing with Kolosky) but didn't consider it a huge deal.

This is why Tranquility is not the absolute goal, but any continuous Pleaseant state, whethe it be either constant Tranquility/Serenity or Joy/Delight.

Quote from wbernys

I think this is because of the dominance of Plato, he wants to respond to the Platonic objection that the good life can't be one filled with pleasure because pleasure doesn't have a perfectly attainable limit for humans to reach. So the good must be perfect was the accepted belief.

Epicurus responds that Pleasure can be perfect (in removing all pain, often thought the neutral state) and afterwards admits only variation. Just as the Stoic sage may vary in different qualities (rich/poor, young/old, Greek/Non-Greek), but not be more wise, pleasure varies in state to state (Joy/Tranquility), but not be more perfect

Regarding pantelēs: I'm quite ignorant of the nuances of Greek (not just the nuances, most of it) but I see from Nate Bartman's compilation of PD translations that translations of PD21 are fairly evenly divided by translating it as perfect and as complete. In my mind there's a significant difference between these two words, at least in English. "Perfect" seems to have platonic connotations of an ideal state, a state that doesn't empirically exist. "Complete," on the other hand, implies something that one can judge for oneself. I'm curious what the thoughts of those with knowledge of the Greek make of this....

I agree with the middle quote from wbernys . This is in fact a perfect (pun intended) example of why it's important to acknowledge the parsing of pleasure into intensity, location and duration, at least in my way of thinking. The only definitive difference between kinetic and katastematic pleasures is duration: katastematic duration is extended, kinetic duration is short. Both kinetic and katastematic can vary in intensity and location. Having said that, I consider katastematic pleasures to be mental, but there are also kinetic mental pleasures. And both kinetic and katastematic pleasures can cover the full range of intensities. This aids in personal choice of pleasures based on desires in particular circumstances, without concerns over an idealized ranking.

Quite an enjoyable and thought provoking thread!

I feel the need at this point to add in my reading of some of the PDs, which when carefully considered (at least to me), delve into further parsing pleasure as intensity, duration and location. All pleasure is pleasure, full stop. The way to differentiate between various pleasures is not by attempting to rank the pleasures but by looking closely at their intensity, location and duration. For example:

PD09. If every pleasure were condensed and were present at the same time and in the whole of one's nature or its primary parts, then the pleasures would never differ from one another.

Quote from Max DuBoff

a major theme of PD 18-21 (as I understand them) is that a finite life can be perfectly good (pantelēs), i.e., unable to be improved in the respect in which it is good. PD 20 begins with an argument about why an additive conception of pleasure can't meet that standard

PD20. The flesh assumes that the limits of joy are infinite, and that infinite joy can be produced only through infinite time.... (Saint-Andre translation)

Max DuBoff , is this the extent of the beginning of PD20 that you're referring to? I'm reading this as dealing specifically with pleasures of the flesh and infinite time. So if I'm understanding you correctly, you're considering these specific pleasures as additive, since no physical pleasure can last more than a relatively short time. This would be very similar to the Cyrenaic point of view as I understand it. Am I following your logic correctly?

PD20 cont'd: ...But the mind, thinking through the goal and limits of the flesh and dissolving fears about eternity, produces a complete way of life and therefore has no need of infinite time....

For me, combining these two portions is simply saying that the body, or our instincts, desire to live forever or at least as long as possible. But if we understand the philosophy of Epicurus then we understand that we are finite beings who occupy but a tiny portion of infinite time, and that the rest of eternity doesn't concern us as we will be dead and therefore have no way to experience it. I also see this complete PD as a refutation of the Cyrenaic conception of pleasure.

Is this at all helpful with parsing this PD as we each understand it?

I'm not aware of the accepted interpretation of PD20. My personal understanding is that Epicurus is simply pointing out that every human life has a natural limit. If we understand that our lives are finite, then infinity becomes irrelevant and wishing for infinite time is an unnatural desire. In my mind this is a continuation and elaboration of PD19.

Of course pondering infinity is a useful philosophical pursuit. But understanding that our lives are just little blips in time is key for a proper perspective of the limits of our lives. Particularly in a world with nothing supernatural and no afterlife.

Quote from Pacatus

“Attention-Fluid, Hypertexting Brain” (my more affirming version of ADHD – especially rejecting that last D).

Well said!

I'll go further out on a limb and posit that EP is the study of nature (Epicurus advised the study of nature though I don't know that he went so far as to say his philosophy is the study of nature), then you arrive at pleasure as the goal through intense examination of pleasure and pain and how they occur in the body and mind. This is perhaps how you come to an understanding of intensity, location and duration (ILD for short).

Labeling mental and physical pleasures may come either before or after in this process, but a detailed understanding comes from understanding ILD.

Having a format (such as Lucretius) that explicitly introduces the philosophy as the study of nature, and from there gets to pleasure as the goal might be a useful modern pedagogy.

What I've attempted to say is that it's a matter of location. You can experience pain in your stomach and throat as well as painful thoughts, all at the same time. Or you could experience any one of them separately. You can add pleasure/ remove pain from any and all of them by using specific remedies.

This is a way of saying that pleasure is pleasure, without putting one above the other, in order to counter the "absence of pain" argument or the "ascetic" argument. You evaluate pleasures/pains by intensity, location and duration.

Taking the previous examples: 1) the dread can show up in the mind, but at the same time in the chest or the gut. 2) anticipation is primarily located in the mind, but at the same time can cause a feeling of giddiness or increased energy throughout the body. 3) obsessing occurs in the mind, but also possibly in the gut or chest. 4) Remembering a conversation with a friend can either be pleasant or painful, depending on the subject and context, and either way may elicit feelings in the body.

An illustration is that the ancients argued whether the brain was in the gut or the chest, apparently because bodily feelings are so associated with thoughts.

The last few days my body has felt pain free (a rare occurrence!) and this is giving me mental pleasure. The feelings move in both directions. A good workout elicits all sorts of feelings in a variety of locations, and you could say that those in the mind and those in the body are constantly changing in intensity, location and duration.

A good cup of coffee not only tastes good, but that good taste brings mental pleasure in response to the taste. It also might bring physical pleasure in the brain once the caffeine kicks in. Which in turn could bring the mental pleasure of increased alertness.... &c

So, practically speaking we can use the mental model of mental and physical feelings, but I think that if you dig deeper, the model of intensity, location and duration is more accurate. And possibly could bridge the gap between proponents of "absence of pain" vs those following "pleasure".

Black. I have a daytime theme running. If I switch to nighttime the document goes to shades of gray. I have it open in the ReadEra app.

Quote from Kalosyni

So, if you remove mental pains, it doesn't necessarily add in bodily pleasure. Just like if you add in bodily pleasure, it doesn't necessary remove mental pains.

At some point separating the mind from the body makes no sense to me. The mind and body are intricately interwoven and continuously interact. If you have a lousy night's sleep (physical? mental?) both your mind and body can feel out of sorts. "Hangry" is another example: hungry (body) and angry (mind) together.

Separating "pain" from "suffering" is a common way to prevent your thoughts from increasing your pain, whether the pain is mental or physical. So I think the word necessarily is important in the above quote. There's a whole spectrum of interaction between what we consider to be mental or physical, a fact that to my layman's understanding is being emphasized by current neuroscience.

As a practical matter it's useful to be able to understand the location, duration and intensity of your feelings in order to better pursue pleasure. But at some level separating mental and physical is the same as separating pleasure from absence of pain. But maybe I'm just a curmudgeon

Quite impressive Bryan ! Speaking as one who is completely illiterate in Latin, I can say that this is a great resource