Search Results

Search results 1-3 of 3.

  • (Quote from Godfrey) I agree that it does validate Epicurus, but I think the starting point for the analysis is to be sure to get a grip on what "absence of pain" is supposed to mean. Unless you start with Epicurus' premise that all reactions are either pleasure or pain, the term "absence of pain" or "absence of" anything is not going to give a coherent statement of what is present to even begin to talk about, so most discussions of "absence of pain" are going to be meaningless without further s…
  • I'm going to have to come back later to read the full article but on just the opening I would certainly dispute the part in red: Good grief, there's a reason that Epicurus said the goal is "pleasure" and didn't fill the definition of the goal with all sorts of other qualifiers like "refined" and "sensual." Further, though I see that there is preliminary discussion of it, I think we always have to remind ourselves that "pleasure" is what we all understand without need of explanation due to the fa…
  • (Quote from Godfrey) Yes they can't even maintain their fiction long enough to write an article. They are so committed to accepting the view that pleasure is "sinful" or in some way disreputable that they use "absence of pain" like they are pronouncing an enchantment to protect them from evil as they then proceed to indulge exactly the sort of pleasures that they claim are not the goal of life.