Is Pleasure Anything More Than the Absence of Pain?
While pleasure and pain are commonly understood subjective experiences, they are often difficult to define substantively. Like mundane morning routines, their components are rarely given a second thought, much less examined critically. But a brief investigation into their composition and relation yields useful ideas with which one can tangibly improve one’s life.
As is typical of most metaphysical debates, there is a great deal of (conflicting) theory on the true nature of pleasure and how it relates to pain. On one end of the spectrum, 19th century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer argues that pleasure is never anything more than the absence of pain. In this respect, it is a negative emotion: pain and pleasure exist on the same spectrum, where pain is pain and pleasure is merely a proxy for the absence of pain. Schopenhauer also argues that desire is painful. For example, he would assert that when I eat a candy bar, pleasure exists only in that my desire for something sweet and the pain of my hunger are both diminished. In other words, eating only brings me pleasure insofar as it moves me closer to a pain-free existence.
British social and political thinker Edmund Burke, however, takes pleasure to be a purely positive emotion. It is its own sensation, completely distinct from pain. He supports this idea by giving the example of a person enjoying a concert. While enjoying the concert, the person is suddenly delighted by an unexpected smell. Before experiencing the smell, the person wasn’t experiencing any form of nasal pain. Yet, from this pain-free state, they experience a tangible pleasure, suggesting that pleasure is not simply the absence of pain, but its own separate emotion. Since pleasure can be experienced from a state of hedonic neutrality (see the hedonic treadmill), it is a positive emotion. It is worth noting that Schopenhauer could push back on this idea by pointing out that this person isn’t likely in a complete state of hedonic neutrality. Maybe this person just lost their job. Or maybe their dog died. Regardless of the specific pain, there is undoubtedly at least some pain in their lives. Schopenhauer would then argue that the pleasure this person believes themselves to obtain from this smell is merely the diminishment (through distraction) of some other pain they were previously experiencing.
Plato takes a position between these two extremes. He grants that this delightful smell is a positive pleasure. However, he maintains that most “pleasures” are merely the diminishment of some pain. When I eat a candy bar, I clearly diminish the pain of my hunger. The contrast between the ensuing hedonic neutrality and my preceding pain biases me to interpret the sensation of eating as pleasant. In this respect, most “pleasures” are negative pleasures (like eating), but there are a small number of legitimate positive pleasures (those experienced from hedonic neutrality).
Regardless of which (if any) of these arguments convinces you, each end of this spectrum reveals something important about the pursuit of happiness.
Schopenhauer’s argument makes a strong case for emotional and physical minimalism. If desire is painful, excessive desire will be excessively painful. Many contemporary arguments for minimalism stress the ecological, financial, and aesthetic benefits of such a lifestyle. Schopenhauer’s position tells us that minimalism may also lead to a happier* life: a life with less pain.
Burke’s assertion that pain and pleasure are entirely separate, positive emotions dovetails with my last post. Much of conventional human decision-making and stoic philosophy is centered on the avoidance of pain. For instance, in Enchiridion, Epictetus writes:
When giving your wife or child a kiss, repeat to yourself, ‘I am kissing a mortal.’ Then you won’t be so distraught if they are taken from you.
Even if your avoidance of pain isn’t this extreme, it still likely inhibits you from behaving authentically. If we accept that pleasure is a distinct positive emotion, this type of pain-minimizing behavior doesn’t make sense. Less pain doesn’t necessarily lead to more pleasure. Pleasure and pain don’t exist on a linear scale. That being said, some pains should be avoided. For example, you shouldn’t burn yourself for no reason. But, under Burke’s conception of positive pleasure, avoiding pains such as embarrassment and heartbreak won’t make you happier. While you can be happy with pain, you cannot be happy without pleasure.
*As I discussed in my last post, I take happiness to be a life filled with physical, rational, and emotional pleasure. This is distinct from the common definition of happiness as a life worth living because I don’t believe that there is a single, larger attribute of life that is essential to happiness. For instance, while some people find “happiness” in God or altruism, I don’t think that either of these things is a crucial component of happiness. If you happen to find pleasure in God or altruism or, then behaving accordingly will bring you pleasure, leading you to happiness, a life filled with physical, rational, and emotional pleasure.
**The cover image for each of my blog posts is a song about that post’s topic. Every song I’ve used has been added to this Spotify Playlist: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/1hj71NprzRVt9h4LdSK6vk?si=cb0d0ef4907947c7
Feel free to check it out!
