Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Epicurus argues that stable, katastematic pleasures (like ataraxia) are superior to kinetic pleasures precisely because they endure beyond the moment.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
The value of a pleasure may depend on its intensity and quality, not duration—a profound moment might outweigh prolonged mediocrity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Ataraxia as mere absence of pain lacks positive phenomenological content and may constitute a diminished rather than superior form of living.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The claim assumes pleasures are isolable units; but human flourishing likely requires dynamic engagement, not static equilibrium states.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Pleasures that persist provide cumulative well-being over time, while momentary pleasures require constant renewal to maintain satisfaction.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Ataraxia eliminates the anxiety of anticipating pain or loss, creating a stable baseline of contentment that kinetic pleasures cannot match.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Enduring pleasures are rationally preferable because they're achievable through modest means, reducing dependence on external circumstances.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.