I think a more fundamental question needs to be asked: is pleasure vs pain a worthwhile dichotomy to consider? I personally do not see pleasure and pain as opposites or even necessarily in some form of opposition with each other. Both are movements away from the boring and tedious, and they can come hand-in-hand, not even just in the short term. For instance, when I go on a day long hike, I know that I will have blisters and my legs will be in pain throughout it, but there will be great pleasure too. There will be pleasure and pain in the short term.
As Socrates points out, measuring what is pain or pleasure without considering the long or short term benefits is foolish. But saying something is not pleasure if it is harmful seems like the wrong idea. By reframing our reference between things that are healthy and harmful (in more than a physiological sense), we can better determine what is good for us. Often things which are pleasurable are not healthy for us except in the way in which it can alleviate our burdens.
"Now, no one goes willingly toward the bad or what he believes to be bad; neither it is in human nature." I am not convinced of this, unless perhaps I have a different understanding of the meaning of willingly. I often find myself choosing to do things that I know are harmful for me, even things which are harmful and painful.
Regardless of my criticism of the philosophy, this is an excellent article that is well written. Keep up the good work.
There is great information and insight here. Thanks so much. I can use it for myself, both for the pain and pleasure of eating junk food and exercising. Excellent examples! I will also use the process with teens I work with who are struggling to stay away from drugs - talk them through the long-term picture.
We do have to acknowledge that marketing is working against the informed use of measurement and weighing. I have gone on eating truly unhealthy food because I cannot bring myself to accept that the purveyors do not care for my long-term health and may even profit from the healthcare costs incurred. This is hard for many of us to accept. But we must if we choose health and a better life.
Thanks again. I just subscribed and look forward to future essays.
I appreciate the comment and your readership. Thanks for highlighting the fact that many forms of marketing are working against us in regards to this issue. I completely agree.
“ Perhaps this is just another point that illustrates the need for philosophy to be taught within schools? I’m not sure, and I know that I could quickly turn this point into a post in and of itself, so I digress.”
No, I doubt that would have almost any impact on anyone. As John Taylor Gatto once wrote, “we need less school, not more.”
The pain/pleasure/how to lead a good life have very little to do with philosophical discourse or words in my life experience and opinion, for the vast majority of people. You glossed over it by your own admission, but in modern developed societies today, people are being controlled by a myriad of complex forces which they don’t even comprehend at all in most cases. As Slavoj Zizek more or less said in a recent interview, it is increasingly difficult for people to get their “house in order” because the larger house they’re living in is fundamentally destructive.
People need meaningful experiential alternatives to the way our reality is currently structured, not more information.
Meno, I enjoy your writing. A problem I find with applying philosophical argument to everyday life lies in the contrast between logic and emotions. I am 80 years old and have lived most of my life completely depending on logic to make decisions. Now I am learning to identify and experience my emotions instead of ignoring/suppressing them. That project has made it much more difficult/complicated to choose what is more beneficial long term versus more satisfying in the present. As a stoic I did not have such a conflict but I certainly have it now - especially regarding junk food which I could previously avoid being aware of probable future health issues. Today it is a genuine struggle to deny the emotional drive to indulge and apply logical constraints. The same holds true for exercise where I once worked with a personal trainer I now am lucky to take a walk a couple of times a day. I genuinely miss being a natural stoic but my therapist tells me I cannot go back.
I have issues with this, but guess it comes down to the difference between the philosophical and practical value of the thought - maybe philosophical vs statistical judgement.
1) While a good philosophical exercise it is a terrible practical one as people's ability to predict based on hypotheticals and magnitude is terrible and of future pain vs immediate pleasures probably many times worse.
2) I can see a soft point (vs his strong dichotomy) that current pleasures can cause future pains, but that does not make the current pleasure a pain. A pleasure is pleasurable while it brings pleasure. Saying that it is painful because of hypothetical possible pain doesn't change that.
3) For many activities, we don't know the pain that may come from it. We have a better idea through science in some situations, but there are still many things we cannot begin to know. Do you only run this evaluation when you know the possible pains for an activity?
4) Exercise can end up being painful...you can tear something exercising or get in an accident on a bicycle. Where does the philosophy of pain begin and end?
I think a more fundamental question needs to be asked: is pleasure vs pain a worthwhile dichotomy to consider? I personally do not see pleasure and pain as opposites or even necessarily in some form of opposition with each other. Both are movements away from the boring and tedious, and they can come hand-in-hand, not even just in the short term. For instance, when I go on a day long hike, I know that I will have blisters and my legs will be in pain throughout it, but there will be great pleasure too. There will be pleasure and pain in the short term.
As Socrates points out, measuring what is pain or pleasure without considering the long or short term benefits is foolish. But saying something is not pleasure if it is harmful seems like the wrong idea. By reframing our reference between things that are healthy and harmful (in more than a physiological sense), we can better determine what is good for us. Often things which are pleasurable are not healthy for us except in the way in which it can alleviate our burdens.
"Now, no one goes willingly toward the bad or what he believes to be bad; neither it is in human nature." I am not convinced of this, unless perhaps I have a different understanding of the meaning of willingly. I often find myself choosing to do things that I know are harmful for me, even things which are harmful and painful.
Regardless of my criticism of the philosophy, this is an excellent article that is well written. Keep up the good work.
There is great information and insight here. Thanks so much. I can use it for myself, both for the pain and pleasure of eating junk food and exercising. Excellent examples! I will also use the process with teens I work with who are struggling to stay away from drugs - talk them through the long-term picture.
We do have to acknowledge that marketing is working against the informed use of measurement and weighing. I have gone on eating truly unhealthy food because I cannot bring myself to accept that the purveyors do not care for my long-term health and may even profit from the healthcare costs incurred. This is hard for many of us to accept. But we must if we choose health and a better life.
Thanks again. I just subscribed and look forward to future essays.
I appreciate the comment and your readership. Thanks for highlighting the fact that many forms of marketing are working against us in regards to this issue. I completely agree.
“ Perhaps this is just another point that illustrates the need for philosophy to be taught within schools? I’m not sure, and I know that I could quickly turn this point into a post in and of itself, so I digress.”
No, I doubt that would have almost any impact on anyone. As John Taylor Gatto once wrote, “we need less school, not more.”
The pain/pleasure/how to lead a good life have very little to do with philosophical discourse or words in my life experience and opinion, for the vast majority of people. You glossed over it by your own admission, but in modern developed societies today, people are being controlled by a myriad of complex forces which they don’t even comprehend at all in most cases. As Slavoj Zizek more or less said in a recent interview, it is increasingly difficult for people to get their “house in order” because the larger house they’re living in is fundamentally destructive.
People need meaningful experiential alternatives to the way our reality is currently structured, not more information.
Meno, I enjoy your writing. A problem I find with applying philosophical argument to everyday life lies in the contrast between logic and emotions. I am 80 years old and have lived most of my life completely depending on logic to make decisions. Now I am learning to identify and experience my emotions instead of ignoring/suppressing them. That project has made it much more difficult/complicated to choose what is more beneficial long term versus more satisfying in the present. As a stoic I did not have such a conflict but I certainly have it now - especially regarding junk food which I could previously avoid being aware of probable future health issues. Today it is a genuine struggle to deny the emotional drive to indulge and apply logical constraints. The same holds true for exercise where I once worked with a personal trainer I now am lucky to take a walk a couple of times a day. I genuinely miss being a natural stoic but my therapist tells me I cannot go back.
I have issues with this, but guess it comes down to the difference between the philosophical and practical value of the thought - maybe philosophical vs statistical judgement.
1) While a good philosophical exercise it is a terrible practical one as people's ability to predict based on hypotheticals and magnitude is terrible and of future pain vs immediate pleasures probably many times worse.
2) I can see a soft point (vs his strong dichotomy) that current pleasures can cause future pains, but that does not make the current pleasure a pain. A pleasure is pleasurable while it brings pleasure. Saying that it is painful because of hypothetical possible pain doesn't change that.
3) For many activities, we don't know the pain that may come from it. We have a better idea through science in some situations, but there are still many things we cannot begin to know. Do you only run this evaluation when you know the possible pains for an activity?
4) Exercise can end up being painful...you can tear something exercising or get in an accident on a bicycle. Where does the philosophy of pain begin and end?