 When Thomas Jefferson wrote “I too am an Epicurean,” he was not referring to his taste in food or wine. Unlike most people today, who are totally unfamiliar with the greatest philosopher of the ancient world, Jefferson had thoroughly studied the man he considered his “master”,and as a result he wrote in a private letter to a friend in 1820, “I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us.”
What follows is a brief introduction to Epicurus — a man whose fame once eclipsed that of Plato and Aristotle, and whose Forty Principal Doctrines were as familiar to many as are the Ten Commandments to us today.
False philosophers and false religions have labored for two thousand years to create a thick fog around Epicurus’ views. For his views on the role of religion in life, they condemned him as an atheist. For his views of the role of pleasure in morality, they denounced him as a “hedonist.” And for his views of the natural origin of the physical universe, they labeled him as an “atomist” or a “materialist.” These are all major errors, but the true views of Epicurus cannot be understood without dispelling this fog and looking much deeper.
The greatest part of the confusion that exists today comes from failing to understand that Epicurus derived his conclusions by tenaciously following his central insight about man’s means of knowledge: Continue reading »
written by Cassius Amicus
Peace and Safety to the Epicureans of today, no matter where you might be!
I have been thinking a lot lately about how important it is not to waste time, and how short life is. One of the most comforting thoughts that I have learned from Epicurus is that even if I reach the end of my life without achieving some of my goals, at least I will be able to say that I kept my mortality in view and lived free of any false illusions.
And what worse error is there than to go through life believing that we are “immortal,” that there is no limit to our time, and therefore no need to spend life wisely?
Unfortunately, many who are under the influence of false religion waste their lives trusting in the false hope of eternal life after death. Lucian of Samosata, the great admirer of Epicurus, described the error almost two thousand years ago in his work “The Passing of Peregrinus.” Much as in the excellent Alexander, the Oracle-Monger, Lucian described the life of a charlatan (in this case a Christian) who sought to profit from pledging to commit suicide by fire as a testament to his faith in a future reward:
“Indeed, people came even from the cities in Asia, sent by the Christians at their common expense, to succour and defend and encourage the hero [Peregrinus]. They show incredible speed whenever any such public action is taken; for in no time they lavish their all. So it was then in the case of Peregrinus; much money came to him from them by reason of his imprisonment, and he procured not a little revenue from it. The poor wretches have convinced themselves, first and foremost, that they are going to be immortal and live for all time, in consequence of which they despise death and even willingly give themselves into custody; most of them. Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they are all brothers of one another after they have transgressed once, for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshiping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws. Therefore they despise all things indiscriminately and consider them common property, receiving such doctrines traditionally without any definite evidence. So if any charlatan and trickster, able to profit by occasions, comes among them, he quickly acquires sudden wealth by imposing upon simple folk.”
Very little has changed in two thousand years, and it remains as important as ever to “think about death.”
On this and all other twentieths, as Epicurus himself requested, we should honor and remember in gratitude the wisdom he left to us, and rededicate ourselves to the study of Nature as the only way to live happily. Meditate mortem.
__________
As Seneca recorded: Sic fac omnia tamquam spectet Epicurus! So do all things as though watching were Epicurus!
And as Philodemus wrote: “I will be faithful to Epicurus, according to whom it has been my choice to live.“
written by Cassius Amicus
Imaginary Person 1: ”I do believe there is a God, but I don’t really believe all that is written and I have to say it scares me to even say that – but I don’t. Never have.”
Imaginary Epicurean: “Our friends in the Christian/Judaic/Islamic world want you to think the alternatives are (A) the universe was created by Jehovah god of Abraham or (B) the universe arose out of nothing — or out of chaos — by accident. That is a false argument and the root of their deception. The truth is (C): the universe is composed of matter that has always existed and always will. And the matter of which the universe is composed operates according to what Thomas Jefferson wrote about in his Declaration of Independence: according to the laws of Nature. And last but not least, among the the things that exist — subject to those same laws just like us — are Nature’s God(s). The Jehovah, god of Abraham who ordered the slaughter of countless animals, children, and nations in the Old Testament and the Koran never existed, and is not at all the same as the god(s) of Nature. All we know for sure about the god(s) of Nature is that perfect beings do not have troubles of their own, perfect beings do not make trouble for others, and perfect beings do not sleep quietly for eternity and then wake up one day to create the Earth and start trouble for us. And aside from their providing an image of perfect happiness that serves as a model for what we’d like to achieve in our own lives, there’s really nothing else we need to know about them.”
Imaginary Person 1: “You would be surprised at the number of people who try to ‘convert’ me, because I say that I believe in God, but that it doesn’t matter if Jesus is the Son of God or Mohammed was a Great Prophet. I guess it’s really important, but for the life of me – I don’t really understand it!”
Imaginary Epicurean: “I wish I could say I were surprised. The followers of those religions try to convert you because they have been brainwashed by the priests to think that your conversion is a litmus test for you to get into heaven and avoid hell for eternity. Many of these are innocent people of good will, but they have NO evidence to support their argument. The priests of those religions try to convert you because they know that if you ever stop believing in heaven and hell, and if you stop believing that they hold the key to both, you will forever be free of their threats. At that point they will have no further power over you, and you will be free of their demands for your obedience and your offerings. You’ll begin to realize that you shouldn’t look to imaginary gods, or to fancy teachers who have no evidence for their arguments — you’ll begin to realize that you should look to Nature. Nature lays out for us all the evidence we need to live happily, and although it’s not necessarily easy, all you really have to do is study those Natural laws that Thomas Jefferson talked about.”
Imaginary Person 1: ”Wow – well this Epicurus you like to talk about, I thought all he was concerned about was running away to his own private garden and enjoying his wine, women, cheese, and parties — but you sound so serious, and you sound like you’re concerned about me! Tell me what Epicurus taught.”
Imaginary Epicurean, smiling: ”I just did.”
written by Cassius Amicus
 I have anticipated you, Fortune, and entrenched myself against all your secret attacks. And we will not give ourselves up as captives to you or to any other circumstance; but when it is time for us to go, spitting contempt on life and on those who here vainly cling to it, we will leave life crying aloud in a glorious triumph-song that we have lived well. [Epicurus.net]
“I have anticipated thee, Fortune, and entrenched myself against all thy secret attacks. And we will not give ourselves up as captives to thee or to any other circumstance; but when it is time for us to go, spitting contempt on life and on those who here vainly cling to it, we will leave life crying aloud in a glorious triumph-song that we have lived well.” [Cyril Bailey - Epicurus, the Extant Remains]
“Fortune, I have forestalled thee and barricaded thine every entrance, and neither to thee or to any other surprise of life will we give ourselves in surrender.” [Norman DeWitt, Epicurus and His Philosophy"]
“I have anticipated you, O fortune, and I have blocked every intrusion of yours, and neither to you nor to any other circumstance shall we give ourselves in surrender, but when that which is necessary extracts us from life, spitting boldly on life and on those who cling on to it in vain, we shall depart from life with a beautiful song, shouting that we have lived well. [Epicurus.info]
written by Cassius Amicus
 There is an unfortunate strain of thought which poses a significant danger for those who do not discern the important differences between Epicurean and Stoic theory. Straying onto the Stoic path can easily lead to a very un-Epicurean turn toward apathy, introversion, and passivism. In order to get to the root of the problem and seek a solution, we can refer to several sections of Norman DeWitt’s discussion of “The New Hedonism”:
“To return now to the dualistic good, this has been seen to consist, on the one hand, of “the stable condition of well-being in the flesh.” The part that is opposed to the flesh is the intelligence. So far as this is concerned, the perfect condition is ataraxy, which is defined by the New English Dictionary as “Stoical indifference.” This signifies a confusion with “apathy.” The Epicurean sage did not cultivate indifference. It is even said of him: “He will be more susceptible of feeling than other men nor would this be an obstacle to wisdom.” If an example be in point, mention may be made of gratitude, of which the sect made a specialty. The general objective was not to attain immunity to feeling but to keep the emotions within natural bounds, Vatican Saying 21: “Human nature is not to be coerced but persuaded and we shall persuade her by satisfying the necessary desires if they are not going to be injurious but, if they are going to injure, by relentlessly banning them.”
“The word ataraxy implies a metaphor derived from the sea and the weather. One of the original synonyms is “calm,” galenismos, of which the proper application is to the sea, tranquillitas in Latin. The turmoils of the soul are specifically compared by Epicurus to storms and squalls at sea. The chief causes of the soul’s turmoils are unreasonable fears concerning the gods and death and ignorance of the natural limits of pleasure and pain. If a man has attained to true knowledge of these things and keeps his emotions within their natural limits, the reward is comparable to the peace “which passeth all understanding.” For this statement there is a specific Epicurean text, if only the editors did not emend it, Vatican Saying 78: “The truly noble man busies himself chiefly with wisdom and friendship, of which the one is an understandable good but the other is immortal.” Paradoxical as it must seem, Epicurus knows no higher praise than to call a thing immortal; being opposed in this text to understandable, it must mean “passing understanding.” Continue reading »
written by Cassius Amicus
Because the terms are so regularly discussed, it is necessary to work to gain and keep a clear view of the difference between the “greatest good” of life and the “goal” of life.
As Norman DeWitt explained, “Epicurus scored a logical point over his predecessors in drawing a distinction between the greatest good, which he declared to be life itself, and the end or telos. His predecessors, when they defined the good or telos as that to which all other goods were referred while the good itself was referred to nothing, were illogical. Every supreme good, even the eudaemonistic good of Aristotle, is meaningless to the dead; every supreme good presumes life. It was very natural that Epicurus should have been the one to place the finger upon this confusion of thought; since he denied immortality, he discerned that all values must be concentrated in the space between birth and death. Life itself became the greatest good. Modern editors, however, still labor under the old misapprehension that pleasure is the Epicurean summum bonum and emend the text in order to save the fallacy.
With this issue in mind I have added the following two entries to the FAQ page:
What did Epicurus say was the “greatest good” of human life?
- Norman DeWitt explains in Epicurus and His Philosophy that due to translation issues there is much confusion today between the concepts of the “greatest good” and the “goal” of human life. He explains the proper distinction in the chapter entitled “The New Hedonism” which contains the following: Continue reading »
written by Cassius Amicus
 What did Epicurus say about “friendship”?
- Key Doctrine 27: “Of all the things which the wise man seeks to acquire to produce the happiness of a complete life, by far the most important is the possession of friendship.”
- Key Doctrine 28: “The same opinion that encourages us to trust that no evil will be everlasting, or even of long duration, shows us that in the space of life allotted to us the protection of friendship is the most sure and trustworthy.”
- Key Doctrine 39: “He who desires to live tranquilly without having anything to fear from other men ought to make them his friends. Those whom he cannot make friends he should at least avoid rendering enemies, and if that is not in his power, he should avoid all dealings with them as much as possible, and keep away from them as far as it is in his interest to do so.
- Key Doctrine 40: “The happiest men are those who have arrived at the point of having nothing to fear from their neighbors. Such men live with one another most pleasantly, having the firmest grounds of confidence in one another, enjoying the full advantages of friendship, and not lamenting the departure of their dead friends as though they were to be pitied.”
- Vatican Saying 23. “All friendship is desirable in itself, though it starts from the need of help.”
- Vatican Saying 28. “We must not approve either those who are always ready for friendship, or those who hang back, but for friendship’s sake we must run risks.” Continue reading »
written by Cassius Amicus
 I wish to credit Jules Evans and a Facebook discussion for prompting me to return to a subject of supreme importance in Epicureanism. Even more than the nature of “Anticipations,” the subject of “chance” is riddled with profound implications. Against strong evidence to the contrary, the modern view of Epicureanism has become dominated by the idea that Epicurus held the atomic swerve to be the basis of a universe that is essentially “accidental” – the result of “chance” – and that but for “a fluke” all that we see around us and know to be true might have been absolutely and totally different. [And with the further implication that it may be totally different tomorrow.] One of the most profoundly troubling implications of this view, of course, is that man is himself an “accident,” and that human life arose simply through the random combination of elements. This is similar to the argument that, given input of sufficient typewriters and monkeys, the works of Shakespeare will one day be the result.
Such was not the view of Epicurus.
To my knowledge, the best development of the contrary view — itself the majority understanding for hundreds of years — is that of Professor A. A. Long in his article “Chance and Natural Law in Epicureanism” published in 1977 in Phronesis, Vol. 22, No. 1, which provides exhaustive references and discussion. For the remainder of this post I will simply quote from Professor Long’s argument, with the goal of providing enough to prompt the reader to study the full article.
First, we must define what we mean by “chance.” As Long points out, “chance”:
may mean that the event or thing which they qualify is aimless, not something purposed or determined by an end. This seems to have been Democritus’ conception of the world, and he did not contradict himself if he also said that all things are the necessary outcome of antecedent conditions. Random in the sense of aimless is quite compatible with necessary. Since Epicurus strenuously resisted the idea that the world is the outcome of any design or end to be attained, random or chance elements, in the sense I have just elucidated, are basic to his conception of things. But this cannot be the point which Rist and others have in mind when they attribute random and chance events to the swerve of the atoms. There is no need of any exceptional atomic movement to account for aimlessness and lack of purposiveness in Epicurus’ view of nature. Paradoxically enough, the one phenomenon to which the swerve of atoms makes a certain contribution is the purposive movements of living things. Natural events in general are aimless and therefore require no special freedom from normal atomic movement in order to be explained.
Continue reading »
written by Cassius Amicus
For many generations the science of optics and rocketry were unknown, and experiments were far from the point when man gained compelling visual evidence of the size of the sun, confirmed by numbers of differing experiments. In those ages, did anyone live a less happy life by keeping an open mind as to the exact size of the sun? No – when available data is limited and conflicting, keeping one’s mind open to any alternative that has significant evidence to support it is the only proper position to take.
But from the time when the first wizards of mathematics started positing that the stars were gods revolving in perfect circles, and that reality was an indeterminate flux, those who cared to entertain such theories were exposing themselves to doubts and fears for which the purveyors of those doctrines offered no remedy. Those arguments and doubt grow stronger even today, but the ultimate resolution of such questions, as in the past, is through Epicurean principles of thinking: Always keep those things that are certain separated in one’s mind from those things that are uncertain. See Doctrine 25. “If we consider those opinions which are only tentative, and must await further information before they can be verified, to be of equal authority with those opinions which bear about them an immediate certainty, we will not escape error. For if we do this we overlook the reason for doubt between that which is right and that which is wrong.”
In that spirit, here is a supplemental critique of the Platonic philosopher/mathematicians, this time from Lucian’s Dialog “Icaromenippus, An Aerial Expedition:”
“Menippus. Ah, but keep your laughter till you have heard something of their pretentious mystifications. To begin with, their feet are on the ground; they are no taller than the rest of us ‘men that walk the earth’; they are no sharper-sighted than their neighbors, some of them purblind, indeed, with age or indolence. And yet they say they can distinguish the limits of the sky, they measure the sun’s circumference, take their walks in the supra-lunar regions, and specify the sizes and shapes of the stars as though they had fallen from them. Often one of them could not tell you correctly the number of miles from Megara to Athens, but has no hesitation about the distance in feet from the sun to the moon. How high the atmosphere is, how deep the sea, how far it is round the earth— they have the figures for all that. Moreover, they have only to draw some circles, arrange a few triangles and squares, add certain complicated spheres, and lo, they have the cubic contents of Heaven.
Then, how reasonable and modest of them, dealing with subjects so debatable, to issue their views without a hint of uncertainty; thus it must be and it shall be; contra gentes they will have it so. They will tell you on oath the sun is a molten mass, the moon inhabited, and the stars water-drinkers, moisture being drawn up by the sun’s rope and bucket and equitably distributed among them.”
written by Cassius Amicus
|
