Life is nothing but avoiding pain

Sounds like Epicurus.

>>9187678
Yeah that really is epicurus and his apprentice lucretius.

Democritus was vastly more based.

>>9187681
>>9187685

Any direct quote on that please?

>>9187678
You're describing negative hedonism. Many philosophers have talked about it.

wtf guys... the one author it can not be is precisely Epicurus. we're not on /b/ and you shouldn't troll OP. It's maybe Schopenhauer, I don't know him well though.

>>9187678
You should check out Leopardi bro

>>9187718
You don't know well literally anything to be fair

>>9187678
you have to take into account epicurus didn't have the internet back then, so philosophy was his way of shit-posting, i don't think he was getting in on those orgies back then

> life is nothing but pain/avoiding pain
life is nothing but pleasure/seeking pleasure

>>9187723
says the guy who once read "no big deal when you die - Epicurus" in his school diary.

>>9187737
Shut up, retard, you can't even realize that pessimism derives from materialism and so Schopenhauer is clearly a modern Epicurean. You're so dumb you even suggested Schopenhauer even if you don't know him. Take the advice of >>9187720 and go educate yourself, fucking presumptuous asshole

>>9187752
I think you messed something up, you're obviously not replying to me.
However this is interesting, what made you guys think OP was referring to Epicurus ? Sincerely curious.

>>9187678
Saying:
>life is nothing but suffering and avoiding pain IIRC till you die.

Is the same as saying:
>Life is but the pursuit of love and happiness.

Just as the world can be seen either as heaven or hell. Your word choice to reflects your inner peace, or lack thereof.

>>9187763
>the one author it can not be is precisely Epicurus [...] it's maybe Schopenhauer
I'm replying to this exceptional load of shit, who cares who you are or what OP said

>>9187775
Sorry then, your mistake is more serious than I thought. My question still stands, how can you be such an ignorant ? Is it a matter of how Epicurus was taught to you ?

>>9187772
That's globally true, but the wise man with his inner peace sees the world as is it, whereas the foolish young man does not. As a consequence, the two sentences you quote should not be viewed as equally relevant.

What about masochists? They don't avoid pain

>>9187785
What is wisdom's but the acceptance of what you believe to be true? A foolish young man is just as wise as the old monk. The young man simply chooses to listen to what the world tells him, and the wise man listens to himself.

>>9187790
>what is jouissance

File: Thomas Jefferson.jpg (8KB, 327x154px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 327x154px

>>9187678

>>9187832
I would say life is learning more to embrace pain than to avoid it. A life not filled with as much pain as pleasure is a life only half lived.

>>9187863

It's pretty hard to "embrace pain" when your wife and kids die. Try putting yourself in the shoes of a 18th century man and see if you can really imagine yourself "embracing pain". I don't think most of us even know what real pain is.

>>9187874
My father killed himself, I don't even know when and where's he's buried, and my mother used me for money and abused before abandoning me when I was 16. But you're right. I don't know what real pain feels like. Let alone imagine it

>>9187785
>how can you be such an ignorant ?
whoa, we have some edgy kid here
Unless you're just trying to bait me hard (and in such case you already failed miserably), explain to me how Schopenhauer and Epicurus differ from each other. C'mon, elaborate your explanation

Try Daoism

>>9187678
If we're not in pain, we're not alive.

>>9188109
Damn, you could have answered my question, or at least, you could have explain Schopenhauer to me. Looks like you don't wanna teach anyone anything, only waiting to be taught yourself. Such an attitude I would call selfish.

Anyway - keep in mind that I hardly know anything about Schopenhauer, right ? All I can do is show why these sentences cannot apply to Epicurus :
> life is nothing but suffering and avoiding pain IIRC till you die
> life is nothing but pain/avoiding pain

First, it's true that the absence of pain is pleasure or provides pleasure. Catastematic pleasure. And it's also true that it's natural to search pleasure. And that pleasure is the only "good" thing.

As a consequence, you could say that life is always about avoiding pain (or endure it when you don't avoid it).

However, such an understanding is based on a play with words. If Schopenhauer is pessimistic (which I don't know), then it would be one point where he differs from Epicurus. Let's not play with words : Epicurus states clearly that the things that keep pain away and that provide pleasure, are precisely the things that are easier to get. As a consequence, pleasure and happiness, which are naturally sought after, are naturally easy to reach. It's the exact opposite of pessimism.

Now, from a very down-to-earth point of view, you could still say : look, Epicurus himself, as a wise man who does not suffer from the absence of any necessary good, the epicurean wise man himself, is still someone whose life consists in pain and avoiding pain ! since avoiding pain is pleasure... If he's always happy, then he's just always avoiding pain !

The thing is, pleasure is not ONLY the absence of pain. The absence of pain is catastematic pleasure. However pleasure can also be dynamic. There's a debate among scholars, as to whether "dynamic pleasure" only applies to the process of satisfying a need, therefore suppressing pain (which is what Epicurus explicitely states), or if "dynamic pleasure" can also apply to non-necessary pleasures (as in : I don't need sex, I feel no pain due to lack of sex, but I'll still fuck this girl). I'm certainly not able to decide, but the key point is that pleasure is not only the absence of pain, even if the absence of pain is pleasure.

(by the way, in case someone less ignorant than you happens to read this : would you guys say that there's a difference between "happiness" and "bliss" ? or whatever the english words are - eudaimon, eudaimonia, and makarios, makaron)

>>9188354
Yes, bliss is specifically defined as "perfect happiness". So happiness would be the acquisition of pleasure over pain where bliss is the achievement of a long standing or permanent state of happiness. Though when comparing 'bliss' and 'eudaimon', eudaimon has much more of a spiritual context when compared to bliss.

As for that "dynamic pleasure" talk, I believe that pleasantries which alleviate pain yet aren't needed, are more delusions to ourselves to allow a temporary escape from the pain of lacking whatever it is we really needed.
>Having a few drinks last night was a pleasant break from the demand at work this week.

>The state of pleasure I felt when I surpassed my expectations at work radiated through me.

The happiness of getting a buzz is a fleeting, delusional escape from the true happiness you sought to achieve from work.

>>9187678
It's lent and I know a lot of people who are fasting and giving up things, causing up pain. how do you explain this

File: beyond the pleasure principle.jpg (303KB, 1250x1250px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 1250x1250px

The pain and pleasure dichotomy is not so absolute.

We enjoy our pain and our enjoyment hurts.

>>9188604
If you don't understand the process of lent, you shouldn't be posting on this topic.