Turning to Plato (427–347), we turn away from largely fragmentary and sparse testimonial evidence to substantial primary textual evidence and to such evidence as bears directly on the question “What is pleasure?” We have more from Plato on pleasure and specifically on the identity question than from any other ancient author. Because of this, I have divided the discussion of Plato’s treatment of pleasure into two chapters. The emphasis of the present chapter is on what Plato takes pleasure to be. The emphasis of Chapter 5 is on a distinction central to Plato’s thinking about pleasure, namely, between true and untrue or true and false pleasures. As we will see, the two topics overlap to a considerable extent.

Plato discusses pleasure in many of his dialogues. His most important discussions occur in three: Republic (specifically, Book 9), Timaeus, and Philebus. Our discussion will focus on Plato’s treatments of pleasure in these texts. I will also have some things to say about Plato’s treatment of pleasure in two other dialogues, Gorgias and Hippias Major.

This book principally examines philosophical conceptions of pleasure in Greek and to a more limited extent Greco-Roman antiquity. The discussion begins with pre-Platonic treatments (Chapters 2 and 3). The heart of the book is then devoted to the contributions of Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, the Cyrenaics, and the Old Stoics, in that order (Chapters 4–8). Consequently, the book principally focuses on a stretch of about 200 years of philosophical history, from the beginning of Plato’s literary career in the early fourth century bce to the death of the Old Stoic philosopher Chrysippus at the end of the third century bce. Chapter 9, which follows, discusses contemporary conceptions of pleasure, specifically Anglophone conceptions since World War II. Its aim is to provide perspective on and a means of assessing the ancients’ contributions. The conclusion (Chapter 10) then offers some remarks to this effect. A bibliography with suggestions for further reading follows the conclusion. Among these are suggestions for reading concerning conceptions of pleasure in antiquity after the Old Stoics.

THE RELEVANCE OF AN INQUIRY INTO ANCIENT GREEK PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPTIONS OF PLEASURE

Elizabeth Anscombe’s 1958 article “Modern Moral Philosophy” is often cited for encouraging a reorientation in contemporary ethical theory, away from the dominant modern traditions of deontology, utilitarianism, and contractualism, toward a style of thought exemplified by the theorizing of the Greeks, namely, virtue ethics or the ethics of character. In her article, as the epigraph indicates, Anscombe suggests that the reorientation must in fact begin outside of ethics, in philosophy of psychology, and with basic philosophical psychological concepts pertaining to the practical life of humans such as action, intention, wanting, and pleasure.

In this chapter I continue the discussion of Plato’s treatment of pleasure. As I mentioned at the beginning of Chapter 4, I will be focusing here on Plato’s distinction between true and untrue or true and false pleasures. Plato first introduces this distinction in Republic 9. It then becomes central to his discussion of pleasure in Philebus. In this respect, the treatment in Republic 9 reads like a rough draft of Philebus. Accordingly, I begin with the distinction between true and untrue pleasures in Republic 9.

Note that in the chapter title and in discussing Republic 9, I use the word “untrue” rather than “false.” This follows Plato’s usage. The distinction between an untrue and a false pleasure seems to be significant. In particular, it relates to a distinction between two truth-conceptions with which Plato operates and which I will explain in due course. Basically, in Republic 9 there seems to be a distinction between two ways in which a pleasure can be true and untrue: representationally and ontologically. In fact, there are multiple ways in which a pleasure can be representationally and ontologically true and untrue. Again, we will come to these distinctions below.

The topic of pleasure enters Greek philosophy in the fifth century bce. The principal site of entry is ethics. Early Greek ethical treatments of pleasure focus on whether, how, and to what extent pleasure contributes to a good human life. There is also some discussion of pleasure in the contexts of theology and cosmology, physiology and psychology, all areas explored by so-called Presocratic thinkers we refer to as “philosophers.” I will discuss pleasure in some of those contexts in Chapter 3. Here I discuss the early ethical contributions.

PRODICUS

Prodicus of Ceos (c. 465–395) – a man often but misleadingly referred to as a “sophist” – composed a pedagogical work, one part of which is known as The Choice of Heracles. In The Choice of Heracles, Prodicus presented the mythological hero Heracles as a young man at a crossroads poised to choose a path of life. Feminine figures representing Excellence and Depravity advertised their respective courses. Prodicus’ Choice of Heracles does not survive. However, a rendition of it by the historian and Socratic philosopher Xenophon of Athens (c. 430–354) does. Consider the following passage from Xenophon’s rendition of Depravity’s exhortation:

I will conclude this study with an examination of the ancient contributions in relation to contemporary conceptions of pleasure. To that end, this penultimate chapter presents an overview of contemporary treatments of pleasure. As with my discussions of the Greek material, my treatment of the contemporary material is, among other things, intended to underscore the historical nature of the contributions – and this is so, even while some of the history here is very recent. In the course of the chapter, the reader will also notice many points of comparison with the ancient material. To facilitate the exposition, I note some of these points, but relegate them to footnotes. Once again, I return to the points of comparison, which will be the focus of the discussion, in the final chapter.

INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHICAL EXAMINATION OF PLEASURE IN THE CONTEMPORARY PERIOD

In the first half of the twentieth century, philosophical discussion of the identity question was sparse. Contrast the work of psychologists who had been examining the nature of pleasure extensively since the end of the nineteenth century, that is, since the work of Wilhelm Wundt (1832–1920) and Edward Titchener (1867–1920). It was only in the second half of the twentieth century that philosophers began a concerted examination of the identity and the related kinds question. Accordingly, I will refer to this period of philosophical investigation of pleasure as the “contemporary” period.

Having completed a sketch of the history of contemporary treatments of the identity and kinds questions, my aim in this conclusion is to offer some comments on the ancient treatments in light of contemporary treatments.

We have seen that Plato, under the influence of Socrates’ “What is F?” question, is the original source of the identity question. The identity question arises for Plato within the context of ethical inquiry. The question that provokes him is what the value of pleasure is and what place pleasure has within the good life. In the contemporary period, it is Ryle, at least within the context of philosophical discussion, who resurrects the identity question. For Ryle, the identity question arises within the philosophy of mind. The problem that provokes him is what the right sort of analysis of this mental state is insofar as it is a mental state. The distinct theoretical contexts of Plato’s and Ryle’s seminal contributions are representative of ancient and contemporary discussions generally.

While there is some treatment of pleasure within the ancient physical tradition, most accounts fall within the sphere of ethics. This is true even though the Greeks, for the most part, view ethics and physical inquiry as continuous.1 Aristotle’s treatments are a striking testimony to this point. Most of Aristotle’s surviving writing lies in biology, but his central hedonic theorizing occurs within his ethical treatises. In the case of contemporary treatments, there are certainly scholars whose pursuit of the identity question is intended to serve the interests of ethics.

As in Plato’s corpus so in Aristotle’s, the topic of pleasure arises in numerous passages. By far the most important of these occur in Aristotle’s ethical writings, specifically in Eudemian Ethics and Nicomachean Ethics, more precisely still in Eudemian Ethics, Book 6, sections 4–5 and sections 11–14; and in Nicomachean Ethics, Book 3, section 10; Book 7, section 4–5 and sections 11–14; and Book 10, sections 1–5.

An ethical treatise transmitted in the Aristotelian corpus and entitled Magna Moralia also contains an important discussion of pleasure (precisely, at Magna Moralia 2.7). There has been a long-standing debate over the authenticity of this work.

One further substantial treatment of pleasure occurs in Aristotle’s rhetorical treatise Rhetoric 1.11. Here again the treatment is closely related to ethics. At least, one of the central concerns of Aristotelian ethics is the cultivation of emotional dispositions, and one of the central concerns of rhetoric is manipulation of emotions.

There are also numerous, more cursory treatments or mentions of pleasure scattered throughout Aristotle’s corpus, for example, in the following logical, metaphysical, physical, biological, and psychological works: Posterior Analytics, Topics, Categories, Physics, On the Generation of Animals, On the Soul, and On Sense-Perception and Sensibles. Finally, pleasure plays an important role in a number of the surviving fragments of Aristotle’s Protrepticus, a work whose title translates as “Exhortation” and which, in contrast to all of the other works mentioned, was intended for a relatively broad and public audience as opposed to committed students of philosophy and specifically those of Aristotle’s school, alternately known as the Lyceum or Peripatos.

This chapter discusses Epicurean and Cyrenaic conceptions of pleasure in relation to one another. The reason for juxtaposing their contributions will be clear shortly. For now, let it suffice to say that the Epicureans and Cyrenaics contend over the relation between and the very existence of what they call “katastematic” and “kinetic” pleasures. These terms will be explained in due course. To begin, let us introduce the antagonists.

Epicurus was born in 341 bce and raised on the island of Samos. His father was an Athenian citizen, and at this time Samos was subject to Athenian control. Epicurus left Samos for Athens for a brief stint of mandatory military service in 323. This service happened to coincide with the death of Alexander the Great, upon which the Athenians revolted from Macedonia. Among the ramifications of this revolt was that Alexander’s general Perdiccas expelled the Athenian settlers on Samos. Epicurus’ family emigrated across the water to Colophon on the Ionian coast. This is where Epicurus presumably joined them upon his return from Athens in 322/321. He remained in the east for the next fifteen odd years.

Insofar as we are interested in the Stoic conception of pleasure, we are dealing with a school of thought – as we did in the case of the Cyrenaics – rather than with a single figure such as Plato, Aristotle, or Epicurus. Stoicism endured much longer than Cyrenaicism. In fact, it was the dominant philosophical outlook of the Greco-Roman world from about the third century bce until about the third century ce.

Through these 600 odd years, there was a great deal of continuity among Stoic philosophers. In general, members of the school desired to adhere to the positions of their founders. Inevitably and understandably, however, there were also adjustments, disparities, and renunciations. This applies to the Stoic conception of pleasure as well as to other areas of their thought. Here we focus on the foundational position.

The foundations of Stoic philosophy, normally referred to as the philosophy of the “Old Stoa,” are identified with the views of the first three successive heads of the school: Zeno of Citium (334–262), Cleanthes of Assos (331–232), and Chrysippus of Soli (279–206). Unless otherwise indicated, I will hereafter use “Stoic” to mean “Old Stoic.” Generally, it is agreed that the philosophy of the old Stoa receives its most refined form in the work of Chrysippus. Thus, much of what passes for Stoic philosophy is the philosophy of Chrysippus. For reasons that will become clearer as we proceed, however, the Old Stoic conception of pleasure that we will be discussing cannot or should not straightforwardly be identified as Chrysippus’. Here we can note at least two reasons for this. First, there may be disparities between Zeno and Chrysippus. Second, since a significant portion of Chrysippus’ conception of pleasure derives from Zeno and since we can to some extent specify Zeno’s contribution, we should appreciate originality where it is due. For convenience, I will refer to the “Stoic conception of pleasure,” but now we should understand that this conception itselfmight not have been unified.

Let us turn now from pleasure in the early ethical tradition to pleasure in the early tradition of physiologia, that is, the tradition of the study (logos) of what the Greeks call “physis.” Recall our encounter with the word “physis” in the context of the opening fragment of Democritus’ On Contentment. Democritus there speaks of a man’s “own power and physis.” Here and often, “physis” is translated as “nature.” In the context of physiologia, then, the Greeks were concerned with the study of nature. Yet their conception of physis or nature may be broader than ours. Physiologia also includes the study of non-terrestrial objects and phenomena; it saliently includes astronomy and cosmology.

Physiologia is the field from which Socrates turned when he took his path-breaking steps in ethics. In Plato’s dialogue Phaedo, the character Socrates describes his early intellectual interests prior to the break. The passage is often referred to as Socrates’ early intellectual (auto)biography. Consider the beginning of the passage: