The place of pleasures in the system of ethical preferences in Epicurus

The paper considered the problem of the relationship of the sensual pleasures with the serenity of the soul in Epicurus. The author analyzes two interpretations of the teaching of Epicurus about pleasure. The first interpretation is based on the provision stating that Epicurus distinguishes two kinds of pleasure: the pleasure of rest and pleasure of movement. Consideration of the problem of the relationship of the sensual pleasures with the serenity of the soul has led us to the following results. It is shown that by sensual pleasures Epicurus understands any pleasure afforded by sensation. Speaking of sensual pleasures, Epicurus distinguishes simple sensual pleasure and luxury. The simple pleasures are those that lead to deliverance from suffering, that is, from hunger, thirst and cold. These pleasures do not contradict the serenity of the soul. To the luxury of sensual pleasures Epicurus relates the love of pleasure, delicious food and drink, nice music and entertainment. As to the pleasures of love, Epicurus calls to refrain from them as they are contrary to the serenity of the soul. Exquisite food and drink do not contradict the serenity of the soul, as Epicurus admits the possibility of its use only as a deliverance from hunger and thirst. The pleasure of entertainment and music are associated with joy and gladness, which relate to pleasures of the soul of Epicurus. It is established that Epicurus relates pleasure and fun not only to sensual pleasures, but also to the health of the body and serenity of the soul. We conclude that the only solution to this contradiction is a compromise between the pleasures of rest and pleasures of movement. Thus, the solution of the problem of correlation of sensory pleasures with the serenity of the soul in Epicurus is achieved a reasonable restriction of both kinds of pleasures.The second interpretation of the teachings of Epicurus about pleasure is built around the provision of a single pleasure, one aspect of which is the serenity of the soul. It is found that this interpretation is the solution of the problem of correlation of the sensual pleasures with the serenity of the soul. The author argues for the position that the basis of any pleasure is the pleasant motion of the senses. Consequently, it is concluded that pleasure can not be regarded as a completely neutral state, the opposite of sensual pleasures.

Keywords

Authors

References