The Pleasure principle (n.) holds the impossible so close that it never recognizes it as such.
The Pleasure principle (n.) and its opposite, the reality principle, belong not so much to psychology as to ethics properly speaking.
The Pleasure principle (n.) is, in Freud, an inertia principle: an automatism whose basic tendency is to discharge.
The Pleasure principle (n.) leads the subject from signifier to signifier, generating as many as needed to keep tension as low as possible.
The Pleasure principle (n.) is that pleasure should cease: against all intuition, pleasure by definition is bent on its own end.
The Pleasure principle (n.) is the animal's economy of movement for obtaining the minimum of jouissance — don't stay where one enjoys, since God knows where it might end.
The Pleasure principle (n.) has always been ambiguous — some write it the unpleasure principle; for an apparatus seeking the lowest tension, even pleasure is too much.
The Pleasure principle (n.) read as reducing tension to the absolute minimum would aim at the concrete dissolution of the corpse — the error of confusing it with the death instinct.
The Pleasure principle (n.) is the law of the good as well-being, and Kant's objection to it is airtight: no phenomenon keeps a constant relation to pleasure, so no law of it can be written.
The Pleasure principle (n.) is a limit to enjoyment (in that it is a law which commands the subject to 'enjoy as little as possible'). The result of transgressing the pleasure principle is not more pleasure, but pain, since there is only a certain amount of pleasure that the subject can bear. Beyond this limit, pleasure becomes pain, and this 'painful pleasure'.