Plato on Pure Pleasure and the Best Life

in Phronesis
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?

Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.


Have Institutional Access?

Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



In the Philebus, Socrates maintains two theses about the relationship between pleasure and the good life: (1) the mixed life of pleasure and intelligence is better than the unmixed life of intelligence, and: (2) the unmixed life of intelligence is the most divine. Taken together, these two claims lead to the paradoxical conclusion that the best human life is better than the life of a god. A popular strategy for avoiding this conclusion is to distinguish human from divine goods; on such a reading, pleasure has merely instrumental value, and it benefits human beings only as a result of their imperfect nature. I argue that certain ‘pure’ pleasures are full-fledged, intrinsic goods in the Philebus, which are even worthy of the gods (thus Socrates ultimately rejects thesis 2). This positive evaluation of pure pleasure results from a detailed examination of pleasure, which reveals that different types of pleasures have fundamentally different natures.

Plato on Pure Pleasure and the Best Life

in Phronesis



BobonichC. ‘Plato’s Theory of Goods in Laws and Philebus Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy 1995 11 101 136

BobonichC. Plato’s Utopia Recast 2002 Oxford

BurnetJ. Platonis Opera 1901 2 Oxford

ButlerJ. E. ‘Pleasure’s Pyrrhic Victory: An Intellectualist Reading of the Philebus Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 2007 33 89 124

CaroneG. ‘Hedonism and the Pleasureless Life’ Phronesis 2000 45 257 283

CarpenterA. ‘Pleasure as Genesis’ Ancient Philosophy 2011 31 73 94

CooperJ. ‘Plato’s Theory of the Human Good in the Philebus Journal of Philosophy 1977 74 714 730

CooperJ.HutchinsonD. Plato: Complete Works 1997 Indianapolis

DavidsonD. Plato’s Philebus 1990 New York / London

DelcomminetteS. Le Philèbe de Platon: introduction à l’agathologie platonicienne 2006 Leiden / Boston

DièsA. Platon: Philèbe 1941 Paris

EvansM. ‘Plato and the Meaning of Pain’ Apeiron 2007a 40 71 93

EvansM. ‘Plato’s Rejection of the Thoughtless and Pleasureless Lives’ Phronesis 2007b 52 337 363

EvansM. ‘Plato’s Anti-Hedonism’ Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium of Ancient Philosophy 2007c 22 121 145

FredeD. ‘Rumpelstiltskin’s Pleasures: True and False Pleasures in Plato’s Philebus Phronesis 1985 30 151 180

FredeD. KrautR. ‘Disintegration and Restoration: Pleasure and Pain in Plato’s Philebus The Cambridge Companion to Plato 1992 Cambridge 425 463

FredeD. Plato: Philebus 1993 Indianapolis

FredeD. Platon: Philebos 1997 Göttingen

FredeM. ‘Observations on Perception in Plato’s Later Dialogues’ Essays in Ancient Philosophy 1987 Oxford 3 8

GoslingJ. C. B. Plato: Philebus 1975 Oxford

GoslingJ. C. B.TaylorC. C. W. The Greeks on Pleasure 1982 Oxford

HackforthR. Plato’s Examination of Pleasure 1945 New York

HamptonC. Pleasure Knowledge and Being: An Analysis of Plato’s Philebus 1990 Albany, NY

HarteV. ‘Commentary on Evans’ Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium of Ancient Philosophy 2007 22 146 153

ObdrzalekS. ‘Fleeing the Divine—Plato’s Rejection of the Ahedonic Ideal in the Philebus International Plato Studies 2007 26 209 214

PosteE. The Philebus of Plato 1890 Oxford

TallonA. ‘The Criterion of Purity in Plato’s Philebus New Scholasticism 1972 46 439 445

TenkkuJ. The Evaluation of Pleasure in Plato’s Ethics 1956 Helsinki

TuozzoT. ‘The General Account of Pleasure in the Philebus Journal of the History of Philosophy 1996 34 495 513

VogtK. ‘Why Pleasure Gains Fifth Rank: Against the Anti-Hedonist Interpretation of the Philebus International Plato Studies 2007 26 250 255

WarrenJ. ‘Plato on the Pleasures and Pains of Knowing’ Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 2010 39 1 32

WolfsdorfD. Pleasure in Ancient Greek Philosophy 2013 Cambridge


E.g. Butler 2007108; Evans 2007a; D. Frede 1997 296-7; 1993 pp. xliii-iv 60 n. 2; 1992 444; and Tuozzo 1996 passim. Gosling 1975 questions the application of the restoration account to the pleasures of anticipation as well as the mixed pleasures of the soul such as malice (122). Cf. Gosling and Taylor 1982 140: ‘It seems clear that in the Philebus Plato had no general formula to encapsulate the nature of pleasure.’ It is noteworthy that both passages in which Socrates raises doubts about whether the gods experience pleasure immediately follow discussions of the restoration account of pleasure according to which pleasure implies the destruction (and hence imperfection) of an organism. As a result the question of whether or not the restoration account is a general account of pleasures is directly relevant to the question of whether the gods experience pleasure.


E.g. D. Frede 199360 n. 2; Tuozzo 1996 505; and Wolfsdorf 2013 97 and 101. See Section 2 above for general arguments against this view.


Cf. Carone 2000263 n. 12 264 n. 14; and Tenkku 1956 187 with n. 1.


Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 57 57 25
Full Text Views 119 119 73
PDF Downloads 8 8 5
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0