Is Pleasure Merely The Absence Of Pain?

Hi Ken!

For example - One man breaks his leg, misses the interview. Man (2) gets the job. Man (2) gets pleasure from Man (1)'s pain.

Another? Saddam hussein is executed, iraq is pleased (not as pleased as the oil industry, but pleased nonetheless) One man's pain is another man's pleasure.

One man's wife runs off with her lover - One man's pain (the wife) Husband glad she's gone, is another man's (lover's) pleasure (same wife).

I write a book - Some hate it, some love it = One man's pain..............

Am I wrong on this Ken?
Kind regards.
Mark...

Saddam wants to be executed (so that he can get away),
but his death warrant is executed, by killing Saddam, so he cannot get away.





David

Disagree. One need only ask a winning marathon winner if his pleasure is due to an absence of pain.

It is due to an absence of the pain of loss (emotional pain).

I think on the physical level, pleasure is not the absence of pain. That would be homeostasis.

One must ask, is there emotional homeostasis? I am not sure there is. Generally, despite people always answering "I'm okay" to the question, if you inquired as to the personal feelings of a group of people (and they actually gave an honest answer) you wouldn't find some without an emotional state.

I do believe that "pain" and "pleasure" are too simple of words to define the state of a person's mind at any given time. We are far too complex for this. I derive pleasure and pain from many things, but I also derive happiness and sorrow, which are rightfully different from pleasure and pain. There needs to be myriad words with myriad connotations to even begin to harness the vastness of human emotion in a communicable medium.

Sorry if I digressed, Mark. No, I don't think pleasure is merely the absence of pain, nor are they two sides of the scale. They are facets of a person's emotional personality.

Agreed

Hi A Lyn!

Thank you for that.

Let me throw it at you from a different angle. Is it pleasing not to be in pain?

Have a great day!
Mark...

I have been going over instances of pleasure and pain in my brain all day and I have come to the conclusion that yes- it is pleasing to not be in pain. Children who are not in pain tend to be pleased. I, similarly, am pleased to be without pain, though I believe the reasons are different. Pain is tiring, and so we are able to enjoy ourselves more when we are without it- hence, being pleased.

Hi A Lyn.

If it is pleasing not to be in pain, can we not agree that, in this context, pleasure is the absence of pain?

Nice to see you, by the way!

Mark...

Absence of pain can be pleasurable, sure, but pleasure can't be reduced to merely the absence of pain. Is pleasure of eating merely the absence of hunger? It can be, but can also be much more.

Hi Eorl!
Nice to see you, by the way.

If you look at the 1st post you will see it differs from the title of the thread. I state that to me: Pleasure is the absence of pain. The reason for it being is that I have endured great pain, and to be not in pain is the greatest pleasure of all IMO. I agree it is not "merely" the absence of pain.

Thank you Eorl, and have a pleasurable evening, my friend.
Mark...

Morning here in Brisbane, but thanks anyway, you too

Here's a question. In what way do our concepts of pleasure and pain attach to what they refer to or organize? How does pure concept link up with private pleasure, private pain? And how does this question tie up with the thread question? How well can we use concepts to capture exactly this sort of thing. I want to call pleasure/pain subjective, but subjectivity is as slippery as pleasure/pain. It's easy for us to name a body, but this isn't subjectivity in itself. Pleasure, pain, consciousness, the subject. All of these link up. How are such concepts learned in the first place? We assume that others feel pleasure and pain, even if this is unprovable. What other unprovable assumptions makes society possible in the first place? And if the foundations of thought turn out to be unprovable, what can "proof" mean to us? Can someone prove that pleasure is the absence of pain? I think a person could answer either way and make a case, because the concept is not and cannot be what it refers to. We can play with the concept structure w/o touching the non-conceptual aspect of being/experience that makes concept meaningful. I'm not denying that our concept-structure is hugely important of course. Being is largely revealed/shaped by discourse.

If only the "formalists" could understand that crucial point !

Nope, we can clearly measure pleasure (I'm a poet, and I didn't know it!) being released through your body chemically, through dopamine and endorphins.

However, through the release of endorphins pain also reduced at the same time, which may lead to this conclusion. Dopamine, however, does not. So no, pleasure is more then the absence of misery (alternative to pain, because pain is scientifically the nervous system transmitting physical damage to the brain.)

I think the better question to ask is is misery merely the absence of pleasure.

Question mark noble: what is pain then?

Granted you can say that pleasure is the absence of pain, but you havent given a definition to tell us what pain is. From your opening thread you have merely said that.

p is equivalent to not-q

but you havent defined q but only p.

definition of p: not-q.

definition of q: ?

If you define pain then we can move on from there.

Hi ding!

Pain - The condition of hurting. Unpleasant!

Thank you, and have a great day!
Mark...