Pleasure!
A brief and elementary philosophic note:
A student of Plato (and foreshadow of Euclid's geometry books) called Eudoxus claimed that pleasure was the supreme good. His reasoning for this was that all living things seek it.
Plato once said that pleasure + intelligence = something better than pleasure.
Aristotle used this argument to say that pleasure can be surpassed by addition of another 'good' and so it was not supreme of itself.
For once I'm briefly going to dare to criticise Aristotle's reasoning: the result of Plato's equation, though it may be greater than its parts, is still a form of pleasure (as, for example, where cold water is placed in a fridge, it gets colder, but it is still cold water). Clearly when Eudoxus claimed that pleasure was the supreme good, he intended that his definintion of 'pleasure' should include all degrees of pleasure.
Further, Plato's equation is subjective. For many people pleasure + intelligence <= pleasure. It rather depends upon the drives of the individual. As for me, I would also argue against Eudoxus on this basis: he defines pleasure as something all creatures seek, with reason, or without. To seek pleasure without reason is to succumb to impulsive short term desires. As anyone can see, short term goals desires (shagging you girlfriend's best friend) can very easily lead to long term disasters (being dumped by both girls and living a life of lonely infamy). In other words, pleasure without reason is not necessarily good in any proper sense, either ethically or practically. To say all creatures seek it and so it is good is a patently silly argument.
Finally: is pleasure neutral?
a) Pleasure gives people happiness (sometimes short term, sometimes long term).
b) Pleasure causes pain and suffering (Eating ---> Obesity ----> Death). [see diagram on left]
Conclusion: pleasure has many drawbacks, but what is life without it? It can give life and death. I therefore conclude that it is not neutral but a variation on neutral - ambivalent.
Perhaps I should rename the site An Ambivalent World? ... On the other hand, not enough people really know what the word ambivalence means.
A student of Plato (and foreshadow of Euclid's geometry books) called Eudoxus claimed that pleasure was the supreme good. His reasoning for this was that all living things seek it.
Plato once said that pleasure + intelligence = something better than pleasure.
Aristotle used this argument to say that pleasure can be surpassed by addition of another 'good' and so it was not supreme of itself.
For once I'm briefly going to dare to criticise Aristotle's reasoning: the result of Plato's equation, though it may be greater than its parts, is still a form of pleasure (as, for example, where cold water is placed in a fridge, it gets colder, but it is still cold water). Clearly when Eudoxus claimed that pleasure was the supreme good, he intended that his definintion of 'pleasure' should include all degrees of pleasure.
Further, Plato's equation is subjective. For many people pleasure + intelligence <= pleasure. It rather depends upon the drives of the individual. As for me, I would also argue against Eudoxus on this basis: he defines pleasure as something all creatures seek, with reason, or without. To seek pleasure without reason is to succumb to impulsive short term desires. As anyone can see, short term goals desires (shagging you girlfriend's best friend) can very easily lead to long term disasters (being dumped by both girls and living a life of lonely infamy). In other words, pleasure without reason is not necessarily good in any proper sense, either ethically or practically. To say all creatures seek it and so it is good is a patently silly argument.
Finally: is pleasure neutral?
a) Pleasure gives people happiness (sometimes short term, sometimes long term).b) Pleasure causes pain and suffering (Eating ---> Obesity ----> Death). [see diagram on left]
Conclusion: pleasure has many drawbacks, but what is life without it? It can give life and death. I therefore conclude that it is not neutral but a variation on neutral - ambivalent.
Perhaps I should rename the site An Ambivalent World? ... On the other hand, not enough people really know what the word ambivalence means.
posted by Matt McGrath at 2:27 pm
7 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Holy shit, I was pleased to see 3 comments, didn't think they'd ALL be spam! Word recognition is now sadly on.
Yeah, ha that problem too. Welcome to a non-spam comment! :)
I don't really think 'a' is all that exclusive from 'b'. Pleasure can certainly fulfill your needs in the short term, but can anyone be truly happy living only to satisfy their short-term goals?
Well, actually, maybe we'd all be a little more laid-back if we only looked at our immediate needs and not at the long term. But that's beside the point. There's only so far you can go with the immediate self-gratification. I'm not a religious person, but I'm sure that's the principle upon which the construct of the afterlife rests. regardless of which religion you examine. But even if you're not religious, I at least think life becomes shallow, somewhat meaningless without something to work for.
But then, maybe not.
That's ambivalence. Or... apathy. ;)
You think immediate self-gratification leds to hell (or a form thereof) in most religions?
Hmmm... That'll be a serious problem for me then!
But really though, reading a fascinating but academic work in a hurry because you want to devour it (for example) might result in a few missed concepts, but that self-gratification ain't gonna getcha to hell, surely?
Its also worth noting that these writers are working in Greek, and that we're reading them in English.
I'm not a classicist myself, but I do remember from Aristotle's Politics that he believes the state is designed for supreme happiness (eudaimonia). This supreme happiness is to be self-sufficient - hence, it is to provide both for material goods/pleasure, in order to enable the the citizens to work also for intellectual goods/pleasure.
This then affords complete human happiness - ie. happiness of both body and mind.
I would suggest that the pleasure of the Platonic equation referred to is the material pleasure identified by Epicurus. This is a necessary prerequisite for intellectual (or indeed spiritual) goods/pleasures - but those who refute Epicurus' claim that the universe is entirely material (as Plato and Aristotle refute it) must acknowledge that material pleasure is indeed only a part of supreme human pleasure.
Thus, two pleasurable parts - material and intellectual - combine to form the greatest pleasure/ happiness - eudaimonia. Which is likely to be a different Greek word to those used to discuss pleasure in purely material or intellectual forms.
I was a classicist once upon a time and if memory serves then 'eudaimonia' means 'well for all things' or a kind of universal wellness.
Your argument sounds good to me, and is borne out by history - the Egyptians, for example, were the first civilisation to provide a class of people (scribes) who did not have to work for their material pleasures and so could pursue the intellectual, and look at them...
Post a Comment
<< Home