One of the many aspects of Epicureanism to which I am drawn is the concept of negative hedonism. As I understand it, this is the belief that one should seek pleasure as one’s ultimate goal, combined with the thesis that pleasure consists simply of the absence of pain (physical and mental/emotional). By this account, pleasure is synonymous with peace of mind.
However, I have come across at least two persuasive arguments against negative hedonism. First, if peace of mind is one’s ultimate goal, then it would seem that one should commit suicide as quickly and painlessly as possible, since continuing to live can only disturb one’s mind, without any compensating benefit. Such a conclusion seems unacceptable. Second, the thesis that pleasure consists simply of the absence of pain (that is, that pleasure is synonymous with peace of mind) appears to be contradicted by the fact that positive feelings (such as euphoria) and negative feelings (such as physical pain) appear to be caused by different brain chemicals and processes. Thus, it appears that pleasure and pain are in some ways independent of each other.
Can any of you provide effective counterarguments in favor of negative hedonism? Thank you for your time.
I have the inescapable idea that one cannot know peace of mind without having something to compare it to or contrast it with first; thus negative hedonism would be predicated on a previous state of stoic suffering or something like that. In other words, how would we be supposed to experience pleasure without undergoing pain first? However, I don’t think that one has to experience pleasure first to feel and understand pain, but I’m not sure why. Also, would this be an epistemological problem or an ontological one as it pertains to what it means to live an optimally evolved life? In any case, if it were, I would not necessarily call peace of mind the sine qua non for an optimally achieved life or consciousness; but it does sound very nice and pleasant in a sort of vague utopian way, very likely to be particularly poignant to those who have a hard time facing or enduring pain. Thus, my whole attitude on this issue might vary depending on whether I were feeling pain or suffering in some way as opposed to how I might think or feel when I was feeling fine or at peace with myself and the world. Oh well, I can’t say that I’ve answered your question, but it was fun thinking about it.
Both Buddhism and Daoism (particularly Yangism in the Liezi) have elements of negative hedonism to them. You might want to check them out.
The first critique assumes that suffering is contingent upon existing/living and that existing/living ends with death. I happen to agree with that assumption, but there are plenty who do not. The possibility of that option could present problems for a negative hedonist. Buddha, for example, thought that existence is suffering and that death does not provide an escape from suffering.
Additionally, the first critique assumes that a state of displeasure is, in some way, fundamental. Yang Zhu thought that a state of pleasure (as defined by negative hedonism) was the default state of existence and that displeasure arose from obstructing this fundamental aspect of our nature. So, what we need to do is remove the obstructions and let peace of mind manifest itself.
The second critique is harder to argue against using those sources, since they didn’t have access to modern knowledge. However, both did recognize the difference between “happiness” and an “absence of suffering”.
For Buddha, this is a moot point. Happiness is impermanent, so while you may be happy now that happiness will fade at some later point and you will be unhappy – perhaps even unhappier than you were before you knew such happiness. So, the existence of a positive happiness in no way mitigates the first Noble Truth that “existence is suffering”. Positive happiness only exists in a contingent manner and is no safeguard against suffering.
For Yang Zhu, positive happiness is also problematic. He sees it as an addiction that serves to prevent us from being content. Once we’ve experienced some form of positive pleasure, we want to experience it again and we want to experience more of it. This creates a self-destructive cycle that is marked by unhappiness and a lack of contentment. So, to embrace a positive notion of pleasure is to create unhappiness for one’s own self.
If suffering were not contingent upon existing/living that ends with death, then what would it be contingent on?
Also, why wouldn’t death provide an escape from suffering?
That’s easier said than done I would think… not that it can’t be done ever by anyone, though it seems predicated on a person being in the position of being able to do that and having the mind to do it.
I hadn’t thought of pleasure as being the default state of existence, and I’m wondering how Yang Zhu arrived at that conclusion. In any case, the way human experience and acquisition of knowledge works, I don’t think that one can really know pleasure without knowing and experiencing pain. Earlier I questioned the reverse proposition, but now I’m not so sure – i.e., that one must know and experience pleasure before knowing and experiencing pain. Somehow intuitively, I have the sense that pain somehow trumps or overrides pleasure, that it somehow exists as a phenomenon on its own. Whether this idea logically makes pain the default state of existence then would be something to consider.
The human brain makes sense of the world through the opposition of dualities, but the principles of pleasure and pain seem to have built into them subtleties and difficulties that other duals don’t.
I expect that is why Buddha teaches that enlightenment and nirvana involve a kind of transcendence beyond pleasure and pain; otherwise, one gets into a never-ending, relatively addictive cycle of moving constantly from one to another. It would be as though being caught up in a vicious cycle, a spiraling sucking vortex sucking you forever in and down until finally, pop, you are released by death… or are you?
Looking at the symbol of the wheel could be interesting here. One of the Tarot cards shows the Wheel of Fortune, link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_of_Fortune_(Tarot_card). In his great poem The Waste Land, T.S. Eliot uses wheels and circles to represent the meaningless activity of modern man’s life – a cart moves and its wheel only turns in circles. There is also both the Platonic and the eastern idea of the soul being released from the “wheel of being,” ,” that is, from the necessity of ever again inhabiting the mortal body, conceived always as the soul’s prison. How this release is achieved has been thought of in different ways, though, whether it be through ritual purification or through the kind of enlightenment that enables one to step off the wheel or else turn it into the essence of one’s self. Whether there is pleasure attached to that kind of transformation is also a question in my mind, or whether it is a matter of living in the space between pleasure and pain in the sense that, metaphorically, the “music is in the spaces” as Mozart once said. Another possibility that appeals to me, if one is caught inside the strictures of the wheel – meaning societal constraints and constructs – is to make it your own and dance it. A good image for this solution would be to see a great artist – stuck in her society and waking up each day expected to push the same stone up the hill like Sisyphus – figure out a way to dance the stone in new and different ways, a good example of such an artist being Jane Austen. And Shiva dances inside his cosmic ring of fire in much the same way. It is a universal cycle of life, destruction, and rebirth; but the dancer himself exists in a state of serene bliss, at peace, even as his body whirls in tune with the energy of the world. Thus, we are ultimately reminded of Yeats’ great and final question in the poem “Among School Children” – “how can we know the dancer from the dance?” Where dancer and dance become one, that is where the wheel stops spinning from inside, where that Mozartian sense of the impact of the space is, where there is both a dwelling in pleasure and pain and complete freedom from it.
This instantly reminded me of Albert Camus, particularly his book called “The Myth of Sisyphus”.
In fact, he begins the book with the following statement–
“There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide.”
He goes on to essentially postulate that suicide is a kind of capitulation, and that the nature of life and reality is absurd (hence ‘Absurdism’). So absurd, in fact, that we spend our lives obsessing with unanswerable questions (which are largely irrelevant anyway), time, effort, productivity, and the like. Perhaps attempting to find meaning or purpose in something so seemingly absurd as life is, in itself, absurd. Anyway, he gets to the story of Sisyphus, who was a mythical character that was punished by the Gods. The punishment condemned Sisyphus to roll a boulder to the top of a mountain, only to have it roll right back down, for all eternity. In the minds of these “Gods”, or the storytellers, there seems to be no worse punishment than hopeless labor or utterly wasted effort. However, this is how human beings live and work every day – we live in a cycle of repetition which seems always to move toward tragety (in our case death, in Sisyphus’ case it may be the boulder rolling back to the bottom of the mountain).
However, inasmuch as one may see the absurdity, punishment, and anguish in Sisyphus ceaceless, and ultimately tragic, efforts, one can also recognize how we identify with his struggle. As Camus put it: “But crushing truths perish from being acknowledged”. In acknowledging the seemingly torturous absurdity we face, we are also acknowledging exactly what of them causes us to suffer. So, we essentially learn to deal with all these absurdly futile tasks in life by looking our torment in the face, then befriending it. That is to say, we can live with our torment, and even find the reversal of joy in it, by accepting the absurdity of necessity (hopeless, futile, endless work) and choosing not to dwell in it, or be convinced by it. But, rather, recognizing that all of which is not mandated is our liberty.
We, like Sisyphus, realize well what is mandated – work, death, etc. However, we also recognize that we are more than our efforts, our jobs, or the work we produce; we own our fate. Regardless of whether our purpose is deemed “torturous”, we can choose to accept our torture or we can find the meaning and purpose in it, learn from it, grow, and find pride and hope in it – eventually to the point that we might find joy in the absurdity, even if for no other reason than to spite that which we suffer.
You couldn’t be further from the truth my friend. Camus was a humanitarian of a rare breed, and loved life. He saw incredible potential in humanity, and endless opportunity to discover and appreciate life.
The absurdity is in focusing on ideas like our meaning, purpose, or nature as it pertains to the seemingly infinite whole of existence, or ‘reality’. Rather, he felt we should focus on the profundity and beauty present directly in life, for that is what we experience and what we should be ultimately concerned with.
Answering these broad Epistemological and/or Ontological questions can be fun, and great exercise for the mind. But to believe we will ever discover some ultimate truth in these things that will at once reveal our purpose and forever alter our existing reality is…well…absurd. It isn’t that such a goal or hope is utterly ridiculous, but it distracts from our appreciation of what is.
[Note: This is my interpretation, feel free to correct me if I’m off base]
You’re not offbase at all… just giving your interpretation of Camus as you see him. The statements were meant more as koans to be seen as paradoxes, each both true and not-true, and both together true and not-true at the same time.
As for truth, it can be discovered anywhere you find it or nowhere at all. I wouldn’t worry too much about it.
Perhaps we need an old joke: Nietzsche stared into the abyss, and the abyss stared back and saw itself.
The key to the efficient (and uncustomary) understanding of great Epicurus waits hidden in the following bon mot:
" Happiness is half-way Holiness. "
Like every profound teaching, Epicureanism is a means to an end, and not itself the final station-destination. Lesser schools or persons often claim this distinction for themselves, a finality of thought based on many rationally justified considerations, but this is not serious, and merely indicates which of inner halls in the “palaces of wisdom” their eyes have not seen yet.
The perfected Epicurean no longer remembers any of the dictums of Epicurus, having organically become suffused with their wisdom on the cellular level.
Worthwhile wisdom is never learned by rote from book or teacher, but, you and I could say, is awakened by them. It would be wrongheaded to judge Epicureanism based on its supposed dictums and claims; if you wish to judge wisely here, judge Epicurus by the fruit of his Work - the transformation it is capable of effecting.
the stated defense or explanation i found is that “when we do not suffer pain, we are no longer in need of pleasure”. frankly this is fcking stupid. pleasure nessesarily occurs when certain biological requirements are met. i.e. when we eat to stay alive. if i eat i experience pleasure. if i dont eat for long enough i experience pain. if i am in a tranquil state without suffering i do not need pleasure(?). so litterally taken, this is false. i think the essense though, of epicureanism, is that a life of simple pleasure and peace of mind is prefferable to a restless, anxious, and stressful life that will likely yield states of more intense pleasure but also pain.
Well, like I said, it isn’t a critique I agree with. But, why should existence end with death? What is life? Basic philo-type questions.
If you kill yourself and are reincarnated, that isn’t an escape from the game. It is just hitting the “reset” button and hoping for different results.
Sure, Yang Zhu didn’t think it was easy to let the default flow through. He thought it was quite difficult. But it is also precisely because of that notion that an easy opt-out like suicide is unappealing to Yang Zhu and his notion of negative hedonism.
It is a pretty basic tenet of Daoist thought. “The Uncarved Block”, “The Useless Tree”, the metaphorical language is quite rich. To oversimplify, it all goes back to the notion of unconscious action (wuwei) as the ideal. By over-thinking and over-analyzing our actions we introduce artifice and that degree of artifice leads to a tension between what we unconsciously “know” we ought be doing and what we are consciously doing. This, in turn, leads to further analysis which proceeds to introduce additional artifice, thereby exacerbating the tension.
So don’t. Spontaneous action is the ultimate good of Daoism. And any philosophy that doesn’t include ultimate happiness in the package of its bill of goods needs to reconsider its marketing department
As a masochist, I’m sympathetic to this line of thinking but I don’t think that it is true. As you noted earlier, our nervous system does respond differently to stimuli that we perceive as “bad”/pain and “good”/pleasure. Undeniably, situations where a clear contrast exists allow us to better perceive both pleasure and pain and through artful combination, we can come to see pleasure as pain and pain as pleasure. But that is undeniably a learned behavior, one whose value-content is up for discussion. I think it is freakin’ fantastic, but I’m also obviously biased on that account!
There is a path going between these extremes and, in this case, I think such a path makes sense for understanding. We can physiologically experience pleasure without pain and pain without pleasure. They are ultimately governed by essentially distinct processes, so that is more-or-less a biological fact. But psychologically, we define the two elements in reference to each other so neither makes sense in the absence of the other.
I’m the P-diddy of comedy and like to steal other people’s jokes but the truth is that happiness (and unhappiness) are complex phenomena. Pain without pleasure? Not so much. Pleasure without pain? We do have demographics that suggest that. It makes Yang Zhu look smarter and smarter. Even though I think he is full of shit m’self . . .
Both “pleasure” and “pain” are too broad and too narrow. Outside of a vague “you know what I mean”, those two terms are pretty empty. That says a lot. The discussion needs to clarify the terms to survive.
That is basically it, though Buddha would have almost certainly have objected to the word “you” since that implies some sort of a “self” that could exist as an entity worthy of the title “you”. It isn’t that “you” get reincarnated, but rather that “you” is an ever-shifting amalgam of numerous elements.
Yeah, that skirts the line that exists between Buddhism/Daoism and straight-up Nihilism. With maybe a little bit of Rand mixed in.
I’ll pass on that grass. The wheel of existence isn’t a prison, it is a playground.
I have difficulty with the idea of reincarnation. It is not, to me, an elegant and simple theory. Another question is: why shouldn’t existence end with death, presuming that by existence we mean the physical body? As for the question of what life is, if it is a question for philosophy to deal with, mustn’t it first be predicated on physics? Isn’t that why Aristotle’s Physics came first?
Okay.
But isn’t “ultimate happiness” thought of as transcending or going beyond both pleasure and pain? I keep thinking that happiness must be contingent on pleasure, but clearly there is some way that that is faulty thinking or an illusion. Perhaps that is because pleasure and pain appear to be inextricably intertwined in some sort of endless feedback loop, so then “ultimate happiness” would somehow mean getting out of this loop.
Lol. Seriously though, you don’t have to be a masochist to think that way. Nor was I saying that pain and pleasure would be confused for each other, just that the experience or knowledge of one requires the experience or knowledge of the other. I’m willing to be convinced that one can know pain without ever knowing pleasure, but I think it would be hard to convince me that one could know pleasure without ever knowing pain or, at the least, the absence of it. Maybe that’s what Yang Zhu was getting at with his idea of pleasure as the default state, the absence of which would be keenly felt as either physical or existential pain.
Okay, that makes sense.
No, I think he has much to offer.
Care to start?
Good point. I’m still not much of a believer in reincarnation, though.
Read what I wrote again as I took the wheel into the dance which turns the prison into a form of play. That is also where the Tao is, I think.
jonquil, off to meditate on the pleasure and pain of all existence and non-existence
Is fulfillment, or cessation of pain, necessarily “pleasure”? One can eat to maintain a natural state. If you ate rice every meal, every day, for a year, I guess you’d get pretty sick of it; but it would keep you alive and functional.
There is a difference between nourishing your body and stuffing yourself to the point of mild euphoria (via mass dopamine dump), for instance.
Why?
That was one of Epicurus’ points I believe. Seek pleasure to the extent that it does not harm your body or cloud your mind – be happy. I think, to him, this involved removing oneself from the illusory pressures of society and politics. Hence one of my favorite quotes from him: “Live Unknown.”
u bring up a very solid counter example. let me bring up another biological drive though, sex. could u go your whole life and relieve this requirement or impulse through say masturbation, never gratifying with the pleasure of sex … and not suffer in consequence of that behavior.
we are on the same page and now i fully understand (or think i do) the essense of epicureanism, but i still think i can argue many instances in which some pleasure is needed to at least prevent collateral suffering, or indirect suffering… i.e. not having a sexual partner with make u lonely, and lonlieness is a form of suffering…
but i am arguing now for the sake of arguing. ask a priest is he can be happy without a women’s touch…
Sex is wholly natural, and a healthy activity. Not sure what you’re arguing here. If your preoccupation with sex actually caused you suffering, then I suppose that would not consitute happiness. Why do you assume Epicureans are opposed to any pleasure? The case would seem quite the opposite.
If you suffer pain, then perhaps you are in need of pleasure - as your own example would suggest. However, if a man were understand this instinct in a way that allowed him to cease longing for sex, no suffering would occur.
I’m thinking that you thought wrong. Especially if you are basing said understanding solely on what I’ve written. Epicurus had incredible depth and wrote like a madman – a solid understanding of his philosophy would take some time in my opinion.
That is kind of moot at this point. There is nothing wrong with seeking pleasure, but excess can lead to trouble.
Do you think it out of the realm of possibility that a priest has believed well enough to fully convince himself of this? In a priest’s case, it is likely he might find greater happiness in abstaining, though it may cause him to suffer to some degree. Suffering is inevitable, that is why we seek pleasure. You’re never going to be all happy, all the time, so you prioritize to maximize your happiness.
wow i suck at using this site. 3 of the same, my bad
i used this example for my “argument for the sake of argument” that didnt directly relate to epicureanism… u seem to think that man can nuetralize and eliminate biological desires. i thought the fact that a small but significant portion of priests who attempt just that, and abstain from healthy heterosexaul sex, molest little boys. thats a good counter imo…
i used this example for my “argument for the sake of argument” that didnt directly relate to epicureanism… u seem to think that man can nuetralize and eliminate biological desires. i thought the fact that a small but significant portion of priests who attempt just that, and abstain from healthy heterosexaul sex, molest little boys. thats a good counter imo…
i used this example for my “argument for the sake of argument” that didnt directly relate to epicureanism… u seem to think that man can nuetralize and eliminate biological desires. i thought the fact that a small but significant portion of priests who attempt just that, and abstain from healthy heterosexaul sex, molest little boys. thats a good counter imo…
Does the value of what is lie in the mind of the beholder? Does it lie in the object? Where does it lie? Value is thought-induced. Consciousness is always moving; it doesn’t linger on something which thought has decided is valuable. There is no one directing.
Not so much. Rather, I think that man can suppress biological desires to the point that he becomes comfortable in doing so. There have been many, many chaste priests, sages, and just generally wise men in history. Some become deviant because of sexual repression I would suppose, but I think it possible that a man can live happily without sex. I’m not saying that the instinctual urges vanish, to be sure.
However, I’d say that sexual deviancy as such is quite contrary to Epicureanism anyway. Beliefs can become a vice just like any other urge or conviction, and, like I said, excess can lead to trouble.
Were you sure of it before this conversation?
I may not have claimed certainty in the matter, but is that not exactly what I was explaining to you? Epicureans have no problem with pleasure, they just recognize the dangers of excess. Restraint and temperance is essentially conditioning one’s mind and body to become more comfortable with particular practices.
Like I said, Epicurus was very deep and almost enigmatic (in my opinion). The guy lived a life of solitude, and wrote something like 300+ books. What research I’ve done on Epicurus probably only brushes some of his most fundamental ideas, I don’t claim to be a scholar on the guy.
Are you not self-aware? I’d say there is certainly someone directing on a conscious level, the subconscious would seem much more difficult to recognize and control. People do have the ability to focus conscious thoughts and activities on specific things.
I’ll put it this way – you may not be paddling (or conscious of your own flux), but you do have some control over the rudder.
I remember reading once that Socrates criticized some of Plato’s beliefs, saying it was as if he were rehearsing for death. To me, Camus seemed the opposite. Focus on your life while you have it, and enjoy it with passion. Don’t waste your life toiling and searching for a purpose – make one.
