In Book VII of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle claims to have a discussion of continence and incontinence, and of pleasure and pain. That said, he does not spend equal time and effort addressing each of these 4 things. Most deficiently addressed is pain. Aristotle makes many general statements and logical arguments surrounding pain, but due to never directly addressing the nature of pain, I have questions left unanswered.
To begin with, is pain good under any circumstances? Most of the references to pain occur in contrast to pleasure. If we are to infer that pain is the equal and opposite partner of pleasure, then we must assume that there is a level of pain that is rightly ordered in the human life. In chapter 14, Aristotle says that "the bad man... does not avoid the excess of [pain], he avoids it altogether," implying that the pursuit of a pain-free life is just as problematic as the pursuit of an excessively pleasurable life.
This is opposed, however, by the claim at the beginning of chapter 13 that "pain is bad and to be avoided." In context, this assertion is used to justify that pleasure must be a good thing. This problematically leads to circular logic. Ex:
"Pain is bad and is the opposite of pleasure, so pleasure must be good."
"How do we know pain is bad?"
"Because pleasure is good and is the opposite of pain"
It sure seems like all I can do is sit here and lament how little time is spent by Aristotle directly addressing pain. In contrast, he spends several entire chapters discussing how pleasure can be good, both with and without qualification. This is disappointing to me because I think there is much to be discovered from exploring pain, the aversion to it, the love of it, the implication of such preferences on the virtues, and the level to which pain detracts from or is necessary for human flourishing. For example, in the same way that attraction to pleasure is a salient issue to understand in order to dialogue about temperance or wisdom, aversion to pain is a salient issue to understand when addressing courage.
I wonder why it is that pain is so sparsely covered in this Book. In any case, its not as if Aritstotle's insights regarding continence, incontinence and pleasure are are too deficiently educational or thought provoking to keep me busy.
It is a good question. Well worth further exploration. I do think he probably say it as simply a part of human existence, part of a tragic world view. I think about it a lot in the context of the yoga philosophy I study, there it is clear that pleasure and pain are both distractions to the good life in similar ways.
ReplyDelete