The so-called ‘Olympian’ proof in Plato's Republic contains one of the first explicit distinctions between the nature of intellectual and bodily pleasures. The argument for the superiority of the former rests on a) identifying pleasure and pain with certain kinds of filling and emptying, and b) differentiating between bodily and intellectual pleasures according to the kind of filling: Bodily depletions differ from depletions of the soul in the kind of lack and, accordingly, in the kind of thing that fills the (...) lack: hunger and thirst are bodily lacks which food and drink can cure, whereas ignorance and folly are cured by intelligence.Thus,, the kind of lack, together with the kind of filler, and derivatively the method of filling determine the kind of filling.Kinds of filling differ in truth: filling A is truer than filling B if and only if the kind of fillers used in A are more than the kind of fillers used in B and the kind of thing filled via A is more than the kind of thing filled via B.Fillers of the soul are more than bodily fillers.The soul is more than the body.Therefore,, filling of the soul is truer than bodily filling, that is, filling of the soul is more really a filling. (shrink)

L’examen des deux descriptions platoniciennes du plaisir intellectuel en République IX et dans le Philèbe soulève diverses questions : d’abord celle des critères qui permettent de démontrer leur supériorité sur les autres plaisirs, ensuite celle de savoir dans quelle mesure leur caractérisation, notamment leur qualité de plaisirs purs, est compatible avec le modèle général du plaisir comme réplétion, dans lequel Platon vient les inscrire. Il s’agit donc d’examiner la cohérence du traitement platonicien du plaisir intellectuel et sa capacité à faire (...) face à deux objections qui lui sont traditionnellement opposées : est-on fondé à affirmer leur caractère pur, c’est-à-dire sans lien avec la douleur? Le modèle de la réplétion qui leur est appliqué permet-il de penser d’autres plaisirs que ceux émanant de l’apprentissage, c’est-à-dire du comblement d’un manque préalable? (shrink)

This paper explains the motivation behind Aristotle’s appeal in Nicomachean Ethics 1154b7–9 to the physiologoi, who notoriously declare that animals are constantly in pain. It argues that the physiologoi are neither the critical target of this chapter nor invoked to verify Aristotle’s commitment to the imperfection of the human condition. Rather, despite doctrinal disagreement, they help Aristotle develop a naturalistic story about how ordinary people easily indulge in sensory pleasures.

AtRepublic9, 583b1–587a2, Socrates argues that the pleasure of the philosophical life is the truest pleasure. I will call this the ‘true pleasure argument’. The true pleasure argument is divisible into two parts: 583b1–585a7 and 585a8–587a2. Each part contains a sub-argument, which I will call ‘the misperception argument’ and ‘the true filling argument’ respectively. In the misperception argument Socrates argues that it is characteristic of irrational men to misperceive as pleasant what in fact is a condition of neither having pleasure nor (...) being pained. In the true filling argument Socrates argues that in so far as pleasure entails somatic or psychic filling and there are more and less true fillings, there are more and less true pleasures. Philosophical filling is the truest filling and thus the truest pleasure. The misperception argument critically contributes to the true pleasure argument by clarifying what pleasure is not: merely an appearance or merely the absence of pain. The misperception argument thereby clears the ground for the constructive contribution of the true filling argument. (shrink)

AtRepublic9, 583b1–587a2, Socrates argues that the pleasure of the philosophical life is the truest pleasure. I will call this the ‘true pleasure argument’. The true pleasure argument is divisible into two parts: 583b1–585a7 and 585a8–587a2. Each part contains a sub-argument, which I will call ‘the misperception argument’ and ‘the true filling argument’ respectively. In the misperception argument Socrates argues that it is characteristic of irrational men to misperceive as pleasant what in fact is a condition of neither having pleasure nor (...) being pained. In the true filling argument Socrates argues that in so far as pleasure entails somatic or psychic filling and there are more and less true fillings, there are more and less true pleasures. Philosophical filling is the truest filling and thus the truest pleasure. The misperception argument critically contributes to the true pleasure argument by clarifying what pleasure is not: merely an appearance or merely the absence of pain. The misperception argument thereby clears the ground for the constructive contribution of the true filling argument. (shrink)