I was just wondering if "the unpleasant" has ever been treated philosophically. Much has been said about "pleasure" and even "the pleasure principle" but "pleasure" is an unclear term as shown by the ambivalence shown to it in many circles. In addition some pleasures sometimes become unpleasant. This is not so for "pleasantness". The pleasant is ever pleasant, and is often to be found like a blossom in the desert of unpleasantness. The persistence of the pleasantness of the pleasant is one of its defining characteristics and one which distinguishes it from pleasure. It proves therefore to be consistent and important not only to smell the roses along the way but also to nurture and remember them fondly. I have heard that Stoics admitted the existence of unpleasantness but has anyone ever refined the notion of "the unpleasant". It seems to have some properties that recommend it as a philosophical notion. For one thing it accommodates an unbounded range of experiences, secondly it is easily perceived and handled descriptively. That there is a need for a philosophical treatment is indicated by the confusion that can be caused in the frail mind by even the mildest of unpleasant things. The notion of "the unpleasant" displays some facility for, as some experiences are unpleasant, so are thoughts of them unpleasant. It therefore transcends the boundary of experience and analysis. Are not criteria that transcend in this way, like the categories, part of perception as well as part of the perceived and of the perceiver? A notion of "the unpleasant" may serve to codify and unify the myriad inputs attendant to anxiety. And that brings me to my point. The philosopher may learn to think of unpleasant experiences as well as thoughts of those experiences in pleasant ways and in so doing be a civilizing force. Joe Ferrara.