Are we in agreement that desires are distinct from pleasures?
As to desires v impulses, I'm thinking that that might be going too far down the rabbit hole to be useful. What's important regarding desires is evaluating them as to whether or not to pursue them. In order to do that we must be cognitively aware of them which is the point at which they become useful.
Exactly! But as I think further an impulse isn't cognitive/rational: it's an urge to act. A desire can be cognitive/rational or not.
For instance advertising is designed to create a desire for something. Maybe craving is a useful word. A desire/impulse/craving can stimulate a pathe/feeling as you describe.
Biologically, to my limited and simplistic understanding, dopamine is involved in anticipation, craving and desire. Serotonin is involved in pleasure/pain. To me this is a potentially helpful distinction, although I'm really not sure if this is scientifically accurate....
Maybe we should go ask Alice 
(I'm dating myself on that one!)
This is where I distinguish between faculties and impulses. I think that biologically it's a difference between serotonin and dopamine if I understand it correctly. I've been trying to clarify this for myself and I think it's an important detail although I may be in left field.
All pleasures are good, all pains are bad. These are faculties. But some desires are natural, some vain, some needed for life or for well being or other reasons. These are impulses, as I've been thinking of them. The removal of pain is a pleasure due to their dichotomous relationship. But the desire to remove pain might be pleasurable or it might not be.
Bingo! It's not the desire itself that's a pleasure or pain, it's your reactions to it and to the consequences of it.
I didn't state that very well: I'm agreeing that there's no neutral state.
1) An act (or state) is never neutral, but our lack of attention to the act may make it appear neutral.
This was intended as a rebuttal to someone who might think something is a neutral state.
As for the desire to remove the headache pain in your walk-through, I guess you could call that a pleasure of anticipation but I would just call it a desire to remove pain: an avoidance of pain. Same with the desire to locate and take medicine. But these are subjective: your experience might be the anticipation of the pleasure of relief, but I'm imagining being in the throes of the headache and just wanting to get rid of it. We both experience pleasure as it begins to dissipate. Further, although eating is generally a pleasurable experience, not so with taking a pill. Again, that's subjective but the relief of hunger or of the headache are both pleasures. My point is that daily experience is a constant interplay between pleasure and pain, our reactions to them and our choices and avoidances regarding them. This is biology, whether our goal is pleasure or the absence of pain. However our higher level choice of a goal affects how we approach everything and, at least to me, this is the key difference between our approach and Jordan's.
I brought up the neutral act/state because I think that that is a place where someone pursuing "absence of pain" would be likely to go astray, thinking that they're experiencing a "fancy pleasure" when they've really just dulled their feelings.
Is the decision to take the pill pleasurable? According to Epicurus, it has to be pleasure or pain. Every action has to elicit a reaction either painful or pleasurable. He didn't leave any middle ground.
In this case, taking the pill is not necessarily pleasurable (unless you take it with honey as per Lucretius ). It is a reaction to the pain. If the pain goes away then that's pleasurable. So we're following the feelings as a guide to action. Pleasure can be an attraction and/or a reward, pain an aversion and/or punishment. We can either strive to elicit a feeling, or notice and respond to a feeling. Or one after the other. That's how we've evolved to operate, to my understanding.
But you're raising an interesting point Don in that taking a pill could be considered a neutral act. That brings two thoughts to mind. 1) An act (or state) is never neutral, but our lack of attention to the act may make it appear neutral. 2) An act (or state) may be subservient to another act or state and so may appear neutral because of 1). Which leads to 3) the more aware we are of our feelings, the more pleasure there is available to us. Which then becomes another argument against pursuing "absence."
[Cassius Admin Note: This thread was excerpted from a longer discussion on another topic, but it quickly turns into a discussion of desire and its relationship to pleasure.]
Say I have a headache. An aspirin might remove the pain, in which case you could say that the resulting pleasure is a byproduct. Or a pleasant nap in the shade might remove the pain, where you could consider pleasure to be the active principle.
Or say I'm depressed. I could take a pill, which might remove the pain, with pleasure as a byproduct. Or I could actively pursue activities meaningful to me, pleasure being the active principle.
I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but having put the thoughts in writing I would react that using pleasure as the active principle is certainly more empowering and, well, pleasurable.
Obviously I can't speak for Cassius, but do have some comments of my own....
I enjoyed your blog post and I think Sherman had some excellent observations regarding a state that won't allow further improvement. Personally, what made his observations so potent for me was that in reading them I was able to feel a state of complete pleasure. For me, this was beyond contentment, it was joyful. But to a large degree I think we are trying to describe the same thing. Going with that assumption, why call the goal pleasure instead of absence of pain?
When I set a goal for myself, I put it in positive terms. Likewise, in my mind the highest goal of my life should be positive, not something that I want to avoid. I'm going to think in terms of striving for good health, not avoiding getting cancer, heart disease, dementia and on and on. There's the example of "don't think about the monkeys" and then all you can think about is monkeys. So to state a highest philosophical goal in negative terms seems to be selling the philosophy short.
Another drawback, to me, of "absence of pain" is a tendency to confuse it with some sort of Zen state. As a former Zen practitioner, I see one of the beauties of Epicurean philosophy as an extremely nuanced examination of pleasure and pain on a personal level. (Actually, as one advances in Zen practice, there is examination of various states of body and mind: the "Zen state" is something of a stereotype.) The stereotypical Zen state (or whatever one prefers to call it) is actually more of a neutral state. For Epicurus, pleasure and pain are binary: there is no neutral state. Again speaking personally, I think we as a society have become desensitized to the niggling little pains and it becomes quite easy to confuse a state of contentment for a state of pleasure. Having said this, this is solved by personally developing one's sensitivity to one's feelings more than nomenclature. But I think that pursuing pleasure leads to opening to the feelings, while avoiding pain leads to a tendency to dull the feelings. The entire basis of the Canon is opening up to sensations, prolepses and feelings, so anything that leads to dulling any of these faculties is counterproductive in terms of pursuing the philosophy.
Stating the goal as pleasure has another advantage of being thought provoking, much more so than absence of pain. Once one is pursuing the philosophy it's thought provoking in a good way in that I think it's more effective in getting one to understand the nuance than is the pursuit of absence of pain, for the reason of opening to the feelings as I described above.
Lastly, to put some words in Cassius' mouth, I think he sees "absence of pain" as an attempt by critics of Epicurean pleasure to equate Epicurus' philosophy with that of the Stoics and others. If so, this is a gross misrepresentation of the philosophy by said critics.
There are these:
PD3 The magnitude of pleasure reaches its limit in the removal of all pain. When pleasure is present, so long as it is uninterrupted, there is no pain either of body or of mind or of both together.
PD4 Continuous pain does not last long in the flesh; on the contrary, pain, if extreme, is present a very short time, and even that degree of pain which barely outweighs pleasure in the flesh does not last for many days together. Illnesses of long duration even permit of an excess of pleasure over pain in the flesh. (well it's not pleasure but it's continuous, fwiw)
I read that blog post last night, so I'm writing from memory. My overall impression was "favorably mixed." I had actually saved it to read again but haven't done so yet.
I agree with the points you make Cassius . For me, the positives were that he (Sherman, I think) was able to explain what he got right in very clear terms. Relating to the blog quote (and Cicero quote), I liked when he continued from that point to an explanation of why most of us aren't experiencing the limit of pleasure: the niggling, everyday doubts, worries, concerns that we barely notice. I think this is a very important point, and I don't even mind that he expresses it in terms of the absence of pain. Since the feelings are pleasure and pain, it's important in living EP that we are sensitive to both feelings. Personally I think we're so conditioned to thinking there's a neutral state that we don't even notice these "discomforts;" at least that was my experience as I began studying EP (and still is, to a lesser degree). So this is where I think he's heading in the right direction: he seems to be starting his thesis with absence of pain but then reeling that back towards a more complete understanding.
Maybe this is how one has to approach it in academia; as you say, it's a step in the right direction. 
I am thinking that a "desire" is something closer to a "concept" in being the result of a conscious thought process where someone is picking among alternative courses of action as the one to pursue. Clearly that's a different issue than "feeling" which is as you said above more of a "reaction."
Yes that's exactly the point I was trying to make. I think it's a helpful distinction in order to understand and follow the ethics.
Going back to the expensive car example: you may desire an expensive car because all your friends have one, or because James Bond has one, or because you think your clients expect you to drive one, or any number of other reasons. The resulting desire is, to me, much different from a pleasure/pain. "Concept" is a good word for it; I also like "impulse." The thought of driving the car may bring pleasure, but to me that is a reaction to a mental impression where the desire for the car could be thought of as a compulsion.
Thoughts....
Continuing with "I want to buy an expensive car" example, but on an alternate route: you may experience pleasure at the thought of zipping along the interstate, but as you stay with the desire for a while you may also experience a niggling little doubt/pain that you can't quite place. At this point maybe it's helpful to think in terms of natural v vain desires, and perhaps you realize now that it's really more important to you to save and invest prudently to achieve financial stability or retire early. But the key point is being keenly aware of your feelings, understanding that they are indeed a criterion of truth.
Cassius I'm not thinking in terms of rationalism v feeling in my comment; I'm trying to get into the details of living our philosophy. Don is probably clearer than I am in explaining this, but I think there is a key distinction to be discussed. Perhaps the lack of clarity between desire and pleasure gives opponents something to attack, so there is that....
When I think of a desire, I think of something which is a conscious thought. Examining a particular desire can stimulate a pre-rational feeling or reaction (pleasure/pain), which serves as a guide to whether or how we pursue that desire. Then we can consciously think about our desire and our feeling about it; this is where rationality fits into the Epicurean scheme as I understand it. As opposed to beginning and ending with rationality and squelching the feelings, which leads to very bad outcomes.
Anyway, I think that this type of discussion is valuable in addition to the battle against anti-Epicureans, and I think that drilling into the details can be helpful to those who come here looking for practical ramifications of EP. Much more useful than "life hacks:" leave those to the Stoics! EP is deep enough and coherent enough to support examination on all levels.
Don !
when you say "... Pursue our pleasures..." that we don't forget that that sometimes involves choosing short-term pains in pursuit of our pleasures. Living a pleasurable life is the goal, and pursuit of pleasure should be a guiding principle but we need to use both the stop (pain) and go (pleasure) reactions to make decisions. Like the pain of exercise can lead to a healthier and more pleasurable life no matter the length of that life.
To drill a bit deeper, I wonder if "follow pleasure (and pain)" is more accurate than "pursue pleasure." I'm not aware of the Greek, which would be instructive, but it seems to me that we pursue our desires. This is why Epicurus gives practical instruction on the desires but more analytical instruction on pleasure and its limits, at least to my current understanding. Pleasure is a hoped for result of achieving a desire, but it is a percept and not something that we control. Desires are impulses and thus something that we can control. Pleasure/pain is a guide, as Don rightly states, and a reward/punishment.
So one may have a desire for early financial independence and retirement. In the process of examining and understanding that desire and the accompanying lifestyle choices, all the while listening to the guidance of one's feelings, one should come to understand that pursuing that desire may lead to either a preponderance of pleasure or pain. At that point they can make a decision as to choice or avoidance. And some time down the road they can go through this process again and adjust course as seems appropriate.
Success is having everything you need and doing everything you want. It is not doing everything you need to have everything you want.
This is the crux of all the gobbledygook in the two pasted posts. Choose your values, your pleasures, and set goals to achieve them. If you are living pleasureably, it's possible that you won't feel the need to retire early. Or at all! If early retirement is a pressing desire for you, by all means go for it, but prudently.
A key piece of Epicurean philosophy as I see it is to examine and understand our desires and pursue our pleasures. To me, this is a much more effective and satisfying approach than ERE as described. It still takes study and effort, but in return you get to better understand yourself and the world. Self-sufficiency is encouraged but, just like pleasure, that means different things to different people. ERE just sounds like verbose minimalism. Isn't that somewhat contradictory?
I've been reading the book Breath, by James Nestor, and came across this description of an idea by Albert Szent-Györgyi. I've actually never heard of him before, but in 1937 he won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.
"Szent-Györgyi wanted to understand the process of breathing, but not in the physical or mental sense, or even at the molecular level. He wanted to know how the breath we take into our bodies interacts with our tissues, organs, and muscles on a subatomic level. He wanted to know how life gained energy from air.
"Everything around us is composed of molecules, which are composed of atoms, which are composed of subatomic bits called protons (which have a positive charge), neutrons (no charge), and electrons (negative charge). All matter is, at its most basic level, energy. 'We can not separate life from living matter,' Szent-Györgyi wrote. 'Inevitably, studying living matter and its reactions, we study life itself.'
"What distinguishes inanimate objects like rocks from birds and bees and leaves is the level of energy, or the 'excitability' of electrons within those atoms that make up the molecules in matter. The more easily and often electrons can be transferred between molecules, the more 'desaturated' matter becomes, the more alive it is."
Seems like Epicurus would agree: no god of the gaps here.
Excellent thread! In a less scholarly vein regarding perceptions of the mind...
So I was just eating tortilla chips with my lunch. I picked up a chip and looked at it. I noticed a spontaneous memory of eating chips in the past, and also noticed a spontaneous anticipation of the pleasure I was about to experience. Eating the chip confirmed the truth of that pleasure.
In other words my sensations (vision, touch, smell) stimulated mental perceptions, in this case a spontaneous memory and anticipation of pleasure which served as a guide to action.
In reference to the fact that we may have multiple senses (up to 20?) senses and two feelings, it seems probable that we have several types of prolepses, of which this description is just one.
Just some food for thought. (ouch)
Thanks Don ! Lots to think about. I'm particularly intrigued by the "true perceptions of the mind." Hmmm....
Interestingly, they also explain this doesnt mean seemingly random events cant lead to complex results. If there would be forces at work penalizing monkeys for not typing correctly and rewarding them for typing correctly, this would greatly increase the odds.
I think that this is the key point. Without the laws of physics (represented by forces penalizing the monkeys), the odds of evolution and the cosmos happening would be pretty astronomical. Further, as atoms combine, the compound bodies get emergent properties which increase the odds of something coherent happening... and so on.
Hi Tim,
I'm finding that, for me, following EP has become largely an attitude. But an important practice, again for me, is to regularly participate in this forum (I don't use Facebook, but that's another option). Interacting with others here is one of the best ways to deepen my understanding of the philosophy, and it takes me in directions that I would probably never go on my own. (Kudos to Cassius for maintaining this forum!) Also, listening to the Lucretius podcast in helpful in a similar regard.
Another practice that I've recently begun to tinker with involves revisiting the personal outline (if you're not familiar with it, there's a thread on the forum). I've been compiling a list of "one-liners": short phrases or sentences that express a key element of the philosophy in my own words. Then each day I pick one at random as sort of a daily "theme." Compiling the list is a helpful method of study, the daily phrase is a way to live with one narrow aspect and let it soak in. Sometimes the daily phrase motivates me to dig deeper as well. It's kind of like principle doctrines for the short attention spans of us moderns.
Yes the three-legged stool is a great illustration of it!
