An idea that interested me in the reading was that pleasure has no process, but instead is instantaneous.

Aristotle says that in most forms there is a process. In this process we aim to reach a certain end. He used the example of walking. We walk in order to reach a certain destination. So walking was not an activity done in itself, but instead an activity done as means to reach the larger goal of your destination. Then he goes on to compare pleasure to this process saying that there is indeed none. He says, “a process must take time, but being pleased need not; for what takes no time and hence is present in an instant is a whole”(Aristotle 434).  He makes the point that there is a process to things which are incomplete or have an incomplete process, but pleasure being a whole excludes it from the process.

This idea seems strange to me because when I think of pleasure I see a process to it every time. In order for humans to reach pleasure there must be a process or a way to get there. For example, if a man runs every day to train for a race, he is enduring a painful process in order to attain the pleasure of success in winning. Even if you look at a person who finds pleasure in nature, such as the sunrise. That individual must still wake up early and venture to a location fitting for the viewing of the sunrise. That is all in the process for pleasure. Am I wrong?

Advertisements