The Conversion Theory Essay

In evaluating the philosopher’s goal of determining how to live a good life, Epicurean philosophers argue that pleasure is the greatest good and pain is the greatest bad. Foremost, for the purpose of this analysis, I must define the pleasure and pain described. Pleasure is seen as the state of being pleased or gratified. This term is defined more specifically by the subject to which the pleasure applies, depending on what he likes. Pain is the opposite of pleasure, which is a type of emotional or physical un-pleasure that results in something that the person dislikes. “Everything in which we rejoice is pleasure, just as everything that distresses us is pain,” (Cicero 1). Through this hedonistic assessment of pleasure and pain, epicurean philosophers come to the conclusion that, “the greatest pleasure [is that] which is perceived once all pain has been removed,” (Epicurus 1).

In fact, however, the pleasures differ quite a lot, in human beings at any rate. For some things delight some people, and cause pain to others; and while some find them painful and hateful, others find them pleasant and lovable…But in all such cases it seems that what is really so is what appears so to the excellent person. If this is right, as it seems to be, and virtue, i.e., the good person insofar as he is good, is the measure of each thing, then what appear pleasures to him will also really be pleasures…and if what he finds objectionable appears pleasant to someone, that is not at all surprising: for human beings suffer many sorts of corruption and damage. It is not pleasant, however, except to those people in these conditions.

According to Hume, the delicacy of the calm passion was one of the most important desire motivate people’s happiness. When people confronted with their trouble, those calming objects would respond immediately in correct it. That is why the person who less sensitive in reflecting the outside factors could obtain more happiness. Therefore, strengthening the calm passion by enriching our knowledge through reading, writing and learning were a great

According to Mill, pleasure should depend on quantity and not quality. For instance, the people who had any feeling of moral obligation are the most desirable pleasure, because those people do not think pleasure as right or wrong (38). “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied” What Mill is trying to say in this assertion is that human beings should not sacrifice their pleasure for others. Also, Mill states that men lose their aspiration when they are too focused on inferior pleasure. If a human does not have no pleasure or feel no pain, then he would not know how to love or desire virtue. When there is pleasure, there will be painful as

In part one of our book, “The Good Life,” we studied five different philosopher’s viewpoints on what is needed in order for a person to have a good, fulfilling life. They all included the concepts of pleasure and happiness to some extent in their theories, but they all approached the ideas in different ways. The two hedonists we studied, Epicurus and John Stuart Mill, place heavy emphasis on the importance of pleasure. They both believe that pleasure is a necessity in the ideal life. Jean Kazez agreed with their viewpoints in her theory and said that happiness was a necessity for a good life. Epicurus and Mill also argue that there is nothing else that we ultimately desire beyond pleasure and that it is an intrinsic good.

Mill says that ethical decisions should be based on pleasure. Therefore when he states that pleasure is the sole requirement for happiness, it is questionable because pain indirectly affects happiness. Pain is an indirect factor because it is not the object of one’s happiness but it is an obstacle, which you have to overcome. If you were to avoid all pain, then how would you truly ever know what pleasure feels like? Real pleasure comes only after experiencing pain. If a person always wins the tic tac toe game then the pleasure they feel turns into an expectation. Thus it is not true pleasure. If the loser of the tic tac toe game after 20 years finally wins he can feel the desired pleasure that he was seeking.

Why do ordinary, rational, human beings actively and knowingly seek out art that appears to elicit negative emotions, especially as these same people tend to avoid such emotions in other areas of their life? This question formally understood as the paradox of painful art is what Hume effectively attempts to address in his essay 'Of Tragedy'. In this essay I will conclude that Hume's solution to this paradox; that painful emotions elicited by art are converted into pleasurable ones; is indefensible. I will first offer my reading of Hume's solution to the paradox of painful art. I will then argue that Hume fails to give a satisfying account of the process of the conversion he proposes, I will then go onto show that Hume's conversion theory

Hume arguments that if good were to will it, we would be all be happy. Yet, neither humans nor animals are happy therefore he does not will

“… we always desire happiness for its own sake and never as a means to something else, whereas we desire honor, pleasure, intellect and every virtue, partly for their own sakes (for we should desire them independently of what might result from them)but

He states that we desire, more so than pleasure, to live a life “in contact with reality” (Nozick 646).

isn’t only art that’s incompatible with happiness; it’s also science. Science is dangerous; we have to keep it most carefully chained and muzzled” (Huxley

The pursuit of pleasure has also been condemned by critics as being little more than the promotion of one’s own interests, with no regard to the happiness of others. Mill disputes this as being narrow-minded, clarifying that the pleasure principle which forms the foundation for utilitarianism, “what is right in conduct, is not the agent's own happiness, but that of all concerned” (Mill 16). With this acknowledgment, however, comes the criticism that people cannot possibly be motivated by something as satisfying the collective good of society. Mill countered this by pointing out, “The utilitarian morality does recognize in human beings the power of sacrificing their own greatest good for the good of others” (Mill 16). To the objection that pleasure is an acceptable end is contrary to Christian principles because it is “godless,” Mill states, “If it be a true belief that God desires, above all things, the happiness of his creatures, and that this was his purpose in their creation, utility is not only not a godless doctrine, but more profoundly religious than any other” (Mill 21).

The paradox of painful art is the problematic question of: why we watch painful art? Examples

Western traditions narrowly define art as a market-oriented specialized discipline (Levine & Levine, 2004). When art is used therapeutically, content and meaning take priority over mechanics and technicalities.

II. There are four distinguishable sources from which pleasure and pain are in use to flow: considered separately, they may be termed the physical, the political, the moral, and the religious:…(Bentham, 382)