On Pleasure as the Default State of the Organism | Society of Friends of Epicurus

For it is to obtain this end that we always act, namely, to avoid pain and fear. And when this is once secured for us, all the tempest of the soul is dispersed, since the living creature has not to wander as though in search of something that is missing, and to look for some other thing by which he can fulfill the good of the soul and the good of the body. For it is then that we have need of pleasure, when we feel pain owing to the absence of pleasure; but when we do not feel pain, we no longer need pleasure. And for this cause we call pleasure the beginning and end of the blessed life. For we recognize pleasure as the first good innate in us, and from pleasure we begin every act of choice and avoidance, and to pleasure we return again, using the feeling as the standard by which we judge every good. – Letter to Menoeceus

The limit of pleasure is the removal of all pains. Wherever and for however long pleasure is present, there is neither bodily pain nor mental distress. – Kyria Doxa 3

I have called you to constant pleasures. – Epicurus

Introduction and Preliminary Dialogue

In the Tenth Book of Diogenes Laertius’ Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Tmima / Portion 136, the biographer states:

He (Epicurus) differs from the Cyrenaics with regard to pleasure. They do not include under the term the pleasure which is a state of rest, but only that which consists in motion. Epicurus admits both; also pleasure of mind as well as of body, as he states in his work On Choice and Avoidance and in that On the Ethical End, and in the first book of his work On Human Life and in the epistle to his philosopher friends in Mytilene. So also Diogenes in the seventeenth book of his Epilecta, and Metrodorus in his Timocrates, whose actual words are: “Thus pleasure being conceived both as that species which consists in motion and that which is a state of rest.” The words of Epicurus in his work On Choice are: “Peace of mind and freedom from pain are pleasures which imply a state of rest; joy and delight are seen to consist in motion and activity.”

While Epicurus and his friends coincided with Aristipus and the Cyrenaic lineage of pleasure-ethics in recognizing the faculties of pleasure and aversion as the nature-given tool by which we identify what is choice-worthy and avoidance-worthy in our environment, there were also many important disagreements between the Epicurean and Cyrenaic schools. Epicurus made the anti-nihilistic assertion that there is no neutral state for sentient beings, only pleasure and pain–and many critics have questioned Epicurus’ reasoning in this regard.

When I began investigating this subject, I asked members of our discussion group how they would argue a defense of Epicurus’ position that the default state is pleasant, rather than neutral, and Michael said:

Cicero in De Finibus accuses the Epicureans of redefining words in misleading ways precisely because they call these neutral states “pleasurable”. I’ve long wondered how much of this is just in the definitions, given that Epicurus apparently defines the katastematic states in negative terms (a-taraxia “freedom from disturbance” and aponia, “freedom from pain”).

It is true that Epicurean Guides were critical of wordplay, and wanted students to focus on their immediate, clear experience rather than on rhetoric since we need true happiness, not the appearance of it. Michael later added:

You might consider it this way: think about a morning when you’ve gotten enough sleep and have just had a nice breakfast. You’re healthy, all your biological needs are met, etc. Is this state pleasant or does it feel like nothing? Most people seem to think that this kind of thing is pleasant: it’s what people call contentment or being relaxed and comfortable or whatever. In fact, it seems a bit weird to say that the proper functioning of your body isn’t pleasant or unpleasant.

It seems true that only ungrateful creatures fail to see this. Most people take for granted their health until they lose it, so whether they see the default state as neutral or pleasant might be a matter of disposition. This is why cultivating a grateful disposition is part of the ethical training of an Epicurean. Some other replies:

Lau. I think it is varies from person to person depending on genetics. Some people are naturally happier than others. Depends on how much of each chemical your brain produces.

While this is true, Michel Offray de la Mettrie argued that every individual has access to some measure of happiness by their innate constitution and by their history.

Maciej. This idea struck me in relation to the fear of death. I think I am somewhat used to the fact my own mortality, but still don’t like this perspective very much. Therefore I must quite enjoy existence itself, since I do not want to lose it.

Lena. I think this is a significant point. I’ve always felt reassured by the eventuality of death, but haven’t sought it even when I felt emotional and physical pain because overall, life and its potential seems worth keeping. I suppose Epicurus agreed, since his philosophy assuaged his fear of death and his health gave out but he chose to remain alive while he could.

Hedonic treadmill, or hedonic adaptation, is a theory in positive psychology based on the observation that people tend to return to a stable happiness baseline after intense good and bad experiences (the most dramatic case study involved a lottery winner and a person who lost a limb: a study showed that a year after these events, both were equally happy).

Many studies on hedonic adaptation focus on how to escape it, or how to raise our happiness baseline. But if the baseline is positive, and not neutral as the Cyrenaics suggest, this warrants an attitudinal adjustment on our part, and a greater degree of confidence in our ability to be happy. How do we justify this? There are various ways to justify, argue, defend, or explain this attitudinal adjustment, and this doctrine.

The Argument from Hedonic Adaptation Studies

The study Beyond the hedonic treadmill: revising the adaptation theory of well-being by Ed Diener et al. shows, among other findings, that “individuals’ set points are not hedonically neutral”.

After reviewing the data from earlier studies on the hedonic treadmill, Diener et al. (2006) found that approximately three-quarters of the samples studied reported affect balance scores (positive and negative moods and emotions) above neutral.

Even in diverse populations, including the Amish and the African Maasai, the wellbeing levels were above neutral.

So even if people adapt and return to a previous point, it’s a positive rather than a neutral one.

The Variety of Experience Argument

If every pleasure were condensed and were present at the same time and in the whole of one’s nature or its primary parts, then the pleasures would never differ from one another. – Kyria Doxa 9

In Liber Tertivs, Lucretius mentions air (the cool element of the soul related to ataraxia), as well as aurea (coldness, related to fear and to the fight-or-flight faculty) and calor (heat, related to the passions, in excess it produces anger) as being all part of the constitution of the psyche. Therefore, another way to explain this doctrine is to say that, while pleasure is innate and inborn and native to our organism, it is not the only faculty or experience that can easily be recalled. There are others.

At all times, our neurological system has some pleasure available to it somewhere in the organism. This is what Epicurus means when he says pleasure is native to our being, or innate to our organism. Due to the variation in time (Kyria Doxa 19) and in the body parts (KD 9), as well as due to the faculties of the mind (KD 20), this argument says that there is always some pleasure available to us, even when there are also pains available to us. Abiding in constant pleasures may be as much a matter of attention as it is a matter of training, choice, or disposition.

The Hypostasis Argument

The Kathegemon of the modern Epicurean Garden of Athens, Christos Yapiyakis argues in Eustatheia (Epicurean Stability): a Philosophical Approach to Stress Management that modern science demonstrates that the body seeks its own natural balance and health. This argument is confirmed by hedonic adaptation studies, as well as by biologists who coined the term homeostasis to refer to the natural balance found in living creatures and systems.

I would argue that homeostasis intuitively follows from Darwinian evolution by natural selection. Creatures do not speciate, or even survive long enough to pass on their genes, if they do not first enjoy some level of stability in their environmental niche and in their body and mind’s ability to survive in it.

The Argument of this Doctrine as Medicine

This is more an argument that affirms the utility or benefit of this Epicurean doctrine, rather than its truth value. The assertion that the default state is positive rather than neutral is a medicine for, and a healthy alternative to, the false doctrine of “original sin” for people recovering from Christianity.

Epicurus is basically saying there is nothing inherently wrong with us, just as we are. We are not irreparably evil and damaged, as we were told in church, and we should not nurture the mentality of self-loathing that this view promotes in us.

Like in Taoism, we find here the view that we are okay just as we are, here and now, and that we should be at peace with the unforced simplicity of the nature of things.

Pleasure is Easy to Attain

While it may seem contradictory to have exercises or experiments to realize the naturalness of pleasure, based on what we have said above (since a default state should in theory be unforced), Epicurus taught that society and culture corrupt people. Infants are born with the innate tendency to seek pleasure and shun pain, but the process of acculturation deforms the natural tendency. This is not in itself bad, since we all need to be able to function as members of our societies, and obeying impulses without calculating the repercussions is imprudent. Still, a philosophical education for us means an opportunity to go back to a more natural way of living.

For this reason, several exercises might be recommended to help us attain a more natural way of living. We may cultivate the Taoist virtue of ziran, or the practice of zuowang (sitting and forgetting), which helps us to put a stop to the never-ending habitual patterns of thinking that keep us agitated and stressed. We may also practice mindfulness, or zazen (sitting meditation), which starts as a simple exercise of observing the breath peacefully, with no interference, and leads to a steady peaceful disposition.

Philodemus of Gadara recommends the method of repetition of Pleasure is easy to attain. This mantra paraphrases and contains the medicine of the third Principal Doctrine of Epicurus, and its repetition and memorization in a grateful and content disposition constitutes one way to practice this Doctrine in order to train ourselves to abide in pleasure and to cognitively assimilate this Doctrine.

Another way to practice this Doctrine is by the daily practice of gratitude, whether in the form of a journal, prayer, or by giving concrete tokens of gratitude.