The Epicureans

The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell

Chapter XXVII - The Epicureans

Zeno, founder of Stoicism and Epicurus, the founder of the Epicureans were contemporaries of each other in Athens.

Epicurus was born circa 342-1 B.C. to a poor colonist in Samos. Epicurus traveled to Athens at age 18 and then lived as a refugee in Asia Minor. In 311 he began teaching and moved his school to Athens in 307 where he taught until he died in 271-70 BC.

Epicurus lived a poor life, partly on principle, partly on a lack of resources. While he was friendly and cheerful with people in his community, he was extremely harsh against other philosophers.

"The philosophy of Epicurus, like all those of his age (with the partial exception of Scepticism),
was primarily designed to secure tranquility" (Russell, 243).

Epicurus considered pleasure to be the good, noting, "the beginning and the root of all good is the pleasure of the stomach; even wisdom and culture must be referred to this".

The pleasure of the mind is the contemplation of pleasures of the body.

He considered virtue to be an empty name unless it was prudence in the pursuit of pleasure.

Epicurus distanced himself from some of the earlier hedonists by pursuing a static pleasure, an equilibrium that was free from pain. This he preferred to dynamic pleasures which always involve an element of pain.

The wise man's goal is absence of pain, not the presence of pleasure.

Epicurus considered prudence to be the most precious gift.

Philosophy was a practical system aimed at securing a happy life.

"The safest of social pleasures, in the opinion of Epicurus, is friendship. Epicurus, like Bentham,
is a man who considers that all men, at all times, pursue only their own pleasure, sometimes
wisely, sometimes unwisely; but, again like Bentham, he is constantly seduced by his own
kindly and affectionate nature into admirable behaviour from which, on his own theories, he
ought to have refrained." (Russell, 245).

Epicurus' teachings sought to live in such a way as to avoid fear.

Two great fears were religion and the dread of death. He taught that the gods did not interfere in human life so that religion was unnecessary and that the soul died with the body so there was nothing to fear in the afterlife.

Epicurus had no real need for science. He didn't care what was used to explain natural phenomena as long as it didn't refer to the gods. Figuring out which explanation was best was just idle curiosity and did nothing to promote the happiness of man so Epicurus thought it unimportant.

The only major disciple of Epicurus was Lucretius, a contemporary of Julius Caesar (99 - 55 BC). Towards the end of the Roman Republic free thinking was fashionable. When Augustus reinvigorated ancient religion and virtue Lucretius' work, On the Nature of Things became unpopular until the Renaissance.

Unlike Epicurus who was prudent by nature, Lucretius looked to the philosophy of Epicurus as salvation from his passions. Unfortunately, it didn't work and he committed suicide.

Lucretius put the philosophy of Epicurus into poetic form. This poem is what has opened Epicurus to most readers since the Renaissance. "What has most impressed them, when they were not
professional philosophers, is the contrast with Christian belief in such matters as materialism,
denial of Providence, and rejection of immortality. What is especially striking to a modern
reader is to have these views--which, now-a-days, are generally regarded as gloomy and
depressing-presented as a gospel of liberation from the burden of fear" (Russell, 250).

The philosophy of Epicurus was too gloomy to garner widespread appeal. As the world became more oppressive seekers of consolation through philosophy and religion demanded a stronger medicine that what Epicurus had to offer. "The philosophers took refuge, with few exceptions, in Neoplatonism; the uneducated turned to various Eastern superstitions, and then, in continually increasing numbers, to Christianity, which, in its early form, placed all good in the life beyond the grave, thus offering men a gospel which was the exact opposite of that of Epicurus. Doctrines very similar to his, however, were revived by the French philosophers at the end of the eighteenth century, and brought to England by Bentham and his followers; this was done in conscious opposition to Christianity, which these men regarded as hostilely as Epicurus regarded the religions of his day" (Russell, 251).

The Late Classical Period

(Originally written November 9, 2006 in Book 11)

The Classical Mind 2nd Edition
W.T. Jones

Chapter 8 - Late Classical Period

Epicureanism

Epicurus was born circa 341 BC in Samos

He visited Athens around the death of Socrates.

He set up a school in Athens in 306 BC and was worshipped almost like a god.

He lived a simple life and was extremely friendly to everyone.

Epicurus 341 BC - 270 BC

Egocentric Hedonism

Epicurus' physics and theory of knowledge are consistent with Atomism and Democritus.

His ethics were radically different from the Atomists and Democritus.

Epicurus held that the end of life is to maximize pleasure.

While in theory it superficially looks synonymous to radical Sophism, Epicurus' lifestyle was not conducive to the Sophist notion.

Epicurus held that a simple, frugal life was more conducive to pleasure than extreme pleasure feelings like the Sophist's advocated.

He distinguishes between desires:
1) Natural and Necessary - food, sleep
2) Natural and Unnecessary - sex
3) Vain and Idle (Unnatural) - exotic food, fancy clothes

He held that necessary desires must be satisfied. Unnatural desires do not need to be satisfied ever.

Natural desires are easy to satisfy, unnatural ones are not for two reasons:
1) Objects of unnatural desires are exotic and harder to come by.
2) Unnatural desires have no limits.

Difficulties with Egocentric Hedonism

Epicurus held that his ethics of natural, necessary and vain desires were grounded in psychology.

Desires are subjective and vary from person to person so what is an objective standard for necessary.

Epicurus' virtues restend on whether or not they produced pleasure.

The problem with Epicurus' virtue is that some noble acts are painful and some acts that are pleasurable are un-virtuous by nature.

Epicurus was ambiguous in his teachings and that led to his popularity.

Repose

Repose was a necessary and natural desire for Epicurus.

Repose - (Physical) rest and relaxation
Repose - (Mental) freedom from worry

Repose was necessary for the blessed life.

Quietude was the ultimate pleasure.

Competition destroyed repose so competition was to be avoided.

Worry destroyed repose.

The two greatest worries:
1) Fear of death
2) Fear of divine intervention

Epicurus' atomism alleviated both of these groundless, superstitious fears.

Fear of death is due to ignorance of man's nature. Fear of divine intervention was ignorant of the true atomistic materialism.

Epicurus pursued knowledge because science created repose not because knowledge was a good in and of itself.

Epicureanism in Rome: Lucretius

Lucretius was the chief Roman Epicurean

Lucretius was concerned with man's irrational fear of death.

Lucretius attacked religion stating, "religion has given birth to deeds most sinful and unholy" (Jones, 323).

Lucretius suggested that fear of death may be the underlying motive for vices. He predicted some of Freudian Psychology.

Both Lucretius and Epicurus saw religion as being superstitious and disruptive of repose.

The appeal of Epicureanism

Repose appealed to the changing times of post-Alexander and the tumultuous evolution of Rome.

Stoicism

Founded by Zeno

Zeno was from Cyprus and founded a school in Athens circa 300 BC.

Zeno was inspired by the simple ethical opinions of Socrates, not the elaborate metaphysical theories of Plato.

The Cynics were followers of Socrates who shunned the amenities of life.

They focused on Socrates' indifference of circumstances and independence of Character. They ignored Socrates' claim "virtue is knowledge" but clung to his belief that no harm can befall a good man.

Poverty, pain, suffering and death come to all good men all the time, thus the Cynics held that these were not bad.

Virtue, to the Cynics, was indifference to what happened to him.

The Cynics' interpretation of Socrates was completely the opposite of the Platonic Socrates.

Zeno first was influenced by the Cynics' teachings, but their anarchist temperament caused him to shun their interpretations.

Zeno wanted to reconcile the Cynic sage ideal with he political temperament of Aristotle and Plato.

The Reconciliation process of Zeno was left for the Roman Stoics who wished to reconcile the ideal with Roman politics.

Stoics divided philosophy into three parts:
1) Logic (Theory of Knowledge)
2) Physics (including psychology)
3) Ethics

Theory of Knowledge

Stoic theory of knowledge is rooted in extreme sensationalism.

Perceptions are the basis for concepts

Stoics believed in the tabula rosa of the mind. There are no innate ideas.

Form, in the Stoics, differed from Plato and Aristotle. It is neither an independent entity (Plato) nor a component of spatiotemporal substance (Aristotle). It is merely a construct of the mind and has no existence outside of the mind.

The Stoic account of form is conceptualism. Conceptualism, despite problems, has had many adherents in the history of philosophy.

One problem is how one perception is known to be true or false. The Stoics assumed that true perceptions are known to be true because of their vividness and strength. False perceptions are hallucinations and illusions.

Aristotle argued that true perceptions were true because they were derived from real objects with a form.

Veridical perception - the transference of the object's sensible form to the percipient.

Aristotle, with vertical perception, had a criteria to distinguish true and false perceptions. But, "there is no way of applying this criterion in specific cases" (Jones, 327).

The Stoics abandoned Aristotle's criteria without realizing the problem that would follow.

Physics

Only matter is real. Nothing exists except the body.

The Stoics faced a paradoxical situation with this because not only does god and the soul have to be body, but good and bad must also be corporeal.

The Stoics identified fire with matter. This is an influence of Heraclitus.

The Stoics were content to basically follow Aristotelian physics and made no advances in the field.

Ethics

The Stoics were original in their ethical theory.

The highest good for anything was for that thing to act in accordance to its nature. They called this happiness.

Unlike Aristotle who called contemplation the highest happiness, the Stoics saw knowledge merely as a means to happiness. They valued science for its utility.

The utility of science in Stoicism is that it helps man to discover its nature (contra to the utility of science in Epicureanism, which is debunking superstition and fear).

The Stoic determinism involved (somehow) divine providence.

Matter was fire, but god was also fire in Stoicism.

The Universe is rational in Stoicism.

"The universe and man, they reasoned, stand to each other as macrocosm and microcosm" (Jones, 321).

Man's life has order, law and reason. Sure, man is a microcosm of the universe, so to0 the universe has these properties.

The "nature" (or logos or providence) of the universe was to be rational.

The old question of law vs. convention had been argued since the 5th century B.C. The Sophists maintained that the nature of the world (its order and laws) was merely a convention of man's mind. Conversely, Plato and Aristotle held that there is a nature of laws in the universe. They held morality as being in accordance with the nature of the world.

The "norm" of a thing is its nature. It is a pattern or a relationship of that thing's parts.

Everything has a nature. This was held by Plato and Aristotle and the Stoics latched onto it.

Humans have a norm and a nature. The deviation from that norm in any particular human being is what can be judged as a deviation from the good or ethical.

The Stoics' conception of nature led them to the idea of universal brotherhood of all men.

The idea of a cosmopolis or universal city was a Stoic invention. Had Plato or Aristotle not been so indoctrinated in the polis or city-state mentality they would most likely have come up with it.

The Stoics held that nature is a criterion and a universal order.

The expansion of the Roman Empire was justified by the notion of the brotherhood and by the ideal of the cosmopolis.

The Stoics maintained that there was a nature or laws that governed men that superseded the laws of any state. Thus, the laws that bound them are not issued by any state. This provided the chance for assimilation of cultures in the expanding empire.

This concept of Stoicism's natural law was absorbed by the Romans, the Christians (reinterpreting it as divine law) and the U.S. founding fathers (Bill of Rights).

The notion of duty was derived from the concept of nature. Though duty was a very old concept by the Stoics' time they gave it a primacy that it never received before.

They separated duty from advantage and spoke of man's end being happiness in negative terms.

Stoic happiness was not Platonic or Aristotelian development of a person or Sophist pleasure.

Stoic happiness was apathy, the peace of mind that comes to accept the world as the way it is. Happiness is indifference to reality.

Stoics held that only motive, not consequences had moral significance. Intention, not outcome mattered.

The stoics utterly rejected emotions.

While the Greeks had been working for centuries to control emotions and had gravitated towards moderation, temperance and the mean. The Stoics held that moderation was as bad as excess. Only apathy is good.

Virtue in Stoicism is either wholly present or wholly absent.

Virtue is obtained at a single point, after years of training. It is achieved when worldly things are put aside and the true perspective of the universe is seen.

Stoicism's extreme asceticism and narrowness are problematic.

Another problem is the rejection of the forms, but the emergence of natural laws.

Another problem is the determinism vs. choice problem. If the universe is determined can we make the choice to be in accordance with nature?

Despite these problems, the Stoic ideal of men living in one community where men act for respect of natural law, not personal gain, is still appealing today.

The Stoic notion of equality for men is another appeal for their theory. A universal state with universal citizenship was centuries ahead of its time.

The Appeal of Stoicism to Romans

Romans, rather than rejecting Stoicism, aimed to purge it of exaggerations.

Rather the apathy, Romans wanted their politicians to put aside personal gain for the well-being of Rome.

Rather than focusing on acceptance as the sole virtue/duty of man, Roman Stoics devised many natures of man and how to act in accordance to one's own nature.

Throughout Roman Stoicism, an ascetic and altruistic tone continued to dominate their views because of their insistence and focus on obligation over interest.

Roman Stoicism's ideal of courage was taking one's political duties seriously and unflinchingly.

Stoicism failed to create a consistent moral philosophy. This fact did not trouble the Stoics themselves because they are more interested with how their philosophy could be used to live in a troubled world rather than how well their philosophy could explain the world.

"Stoicism, in fact, was more a religion (doubtless a rather secular religion) than a philosophical theory" (Jones, 333). This fact came out in their usage of more emotive terminology, rather than cognitively precise meanings.

Notes on the Atomists

(Originally written September 7, 2006 in Book 10)

The Classical Mind 2nd Ed.
W.T. Jones

Chapter 3 - Atomism

The Later Pluralists

The Final development of the pluralists were the philosophers known as "Atomists".

Four major philosophers came to represent the Atomists:
1) Leucippus
2) Democritus
3) Epicurus
4) Lucretius

• Leucippus, if he was real, lived in the 5th century BC and was a contemporary of Anaxagoras.
• Lucretius was a contemporary of Cicero and Julius Caesar, living in the first half of the 1st century BC. 
• Lucretius' poem "On the nature of things" is the most complete atomist text.

Democritus:

• Democritus believed that man's mind was capable of understanding the universe.
• He agreed that the Sophists were correct in saying that the senses provided private opinions, but held that an objective public world was discoverable by reason.

Attempt to avoid difficulties of earlier pluralists:

Atoms were tiny eternal, indestructible, uncreated and indivisible entities. Each atom was a Parmenidean one. Each was an impenetrable plenum.

Each atom is a tiny solid bit of matter.

They believed that there was empty space for two reasons:
1) So there could be motion and thus, conglomeration of atoms
2) It debunked Parmenides' idea of everything being one and indivisible

They said the Parmenidean 'nothing' did not apply to empty space because empty space was something.

Lucretius' version of Atomistic physics:

Democritus hoped to avoid the difficulties of Empedocles and Anaxagoras by asserting reality was made of:
1) Solid, indivisible and qualitatively indistinguishable bodies
2) these bodies moved
3) These bodies moved in empty space

Nothing is created:

• Lucretius held that there is no creation out of nothing.
• He held that the gods did not create anything. 
• He believed that the idea of god caused men undue stress.
• He held that if the gods could be excluded from the world, man would be free. He aimed to do this by showing the uniformity of nature. But, he did not show nature was uniform.
• The uniformity of nature was to be the basis for all of Lucretius' philosophy. Otherwise the gods could simply alter the world at will.
• He was not an atheist though. He believed that there were gods, but that they did not meddle in human affairs.
• The gods, like everything else were made out of atoms.

Nothing is destroyed:

• Like Parmenides, Lucretius believed nothing was created and nothing was destroyed.
• Lucretius believed that if destruction occurred eventually there would be nothing. But, since there is no creation matter must've always existed. If matter has always existed it extends infinitely into the past and if destruction did take place all of matter would've been destroyed by now. Thus, there is no destruction.

The is empty space:

• He ignored Zeno's paradox and simply stated that since motion occurs there is necessarily empty space.
• He concluded this because a pile of hay as large of a pile of led is much lighter.

Space is infinite:

• He held that the void or empty space must be infinite because if it were finite something must exist to bind it. But, what can bind it?

The nature of Atoms:

• Atoms are indistinguishable by qualities. They differ in shape and size only.
• There must be an infinite number of atoms, otherwise the chances of atoms colliding in an infinite space is really low.
• Atoms, though differing in size, are all very small
• Atoms were not infinitely divisible
• "All nature is built of these two things: for there are bodies and the void" (Jones, 84)
• Atoms are knowable by the intellect or reason, but not by sensory perception.
• Lucretius called body that which can be touched and the void that what cannot be touched. But he failed to see the difference betwixt the bodies of ordinary experience and his specially defined body. He confused the two and this led to many problems, one of which was in his account of motion.

The Motion of Atoms:

• The theory of motion, as ethics, were very varied among the atomists. The physical theory was very much widely accepted among all atomists.
• All atomists believed that the world was formed by the "jostling" of atoms. They collided, bounced apart and joined, forming new groupings. 
• They disagreed on how the 'jostling' got going.
• Democritus probably believed that the atoms were always jostling. While he side-stepped the origin problem he was left with every unattractive theory of irreducible diversity of motion.
• Epicurus believed that all motions came from a single, simple motion. He now focused on finding what looked like the simplest motion.
• Rest seems simpler than motion; more natural, but Epicurus could not accept that.
• Epicurus concluded that falling through empty space was the simplest motion. Falling was eternal.
• As an atom fell it would hit another atom and thus, varying motions occur
• Epicurus ran into a couple of conflicts with his theory.
• Falling denotes up and down, but in an infinite space up and down are meaningless
• If atoms move only in a straight pat (to avoid the up/down problem) through space why would they collide with one another?
• Speed would have to vary, but why would atoms vary in speed? For convenience sake.
• Speed would have to be caused to vary by weight. In air and water this is true, but in empty space, weight matters not.
• Epicurus explained this with the theory of "swerve" Atoms would have to swerve a little bit to collide with one another.
• But the swerve would have to be spontaneously caused. In other words, it would have to be created out of nothing, which atomism denied

The Sensory World

• Once atoms collide they take on varying motions.
• But if atoms only possess weight, size, shape and motion how do they form the sensible world? The atomists disagreed on this point.
• Epicurus' view
• Individual atoms are without color, taste, etc., but a group of atoms formed by jostling, have color, tastes, etc.
• The way the atoms are positioned in a grouping coupled with each individual atom's motion gives us sensory data
• The property, such as color in a given collection is dictated by the arrangement of atoms, but the specific color it gives to our senses (red, blue, green, etc) is an accident. Accidents are temporary, properties are not.
• The properties belong to the atoms, what we sense are our own
• The major problem with Epicurus' view is that he holds only that atoms and the void exists. Properties are neither atoms nor the void. So what are they? They have to be subjective then and Epicurus denies this.
• Democritus' view:
• Democritus holds sensory perceptions to be certain atoms flung off from the group that reach our sense organs
• Our sense organs are merely collections of atoms; thus when the atoms flung off combine with the atoms forming our sense organs we "sense" a color, taste, smell, sound, etc.
• Democritus' view is full of paradoxes. In spite of this it is still held by some today.
• Since "we" are nothing more than various configurations of atoms does it make any sense that one configuration of atoms would experience another configuration of atoms as red, solid, or extended?

Classics of Philosophy

Louis Pojman

Pre-Socratic Testimonies

Leucippus & Democritus

Atoms and the Void

1. Leucippus A6

Leucippus and Democritus believe the elements are "the full" and "the empty", the "what is" and "what is not". They held that the differences of the atoms are what makes the world look like it does. The atoms are the cause of all things. The atoms differ in shape, order, and position or contour, contact and rotation. "A differs from N in shape, AN from NA in order and Z from N in position" (Pojman, 19) -Aristotle.

2. Democritus A37

The void is nothing and boundless. Each atom is what-is. Each atom is tiny enough not to be sensed, but have varying shapes and sizes. -Aristotle, from Simplicius

3. "[B156] Thing [dem] is no more than nothing [mêden]" (Pojman, 19). What is (atoms_ is no more than what is not (the void).

4. [B11] There are two kinds of understanding: legitimate and bastard. Sensory perception gives us the bastard kind; any understanding derived elsewhere is legitimate. 

5. [B9] There senses give us opinions, but in reality nothing exists but atoms and the void. -Sextus Empiricus

Formulation of Compounds

6. [A37] Atoms collide with one another and become entangled. They stick together, and became entangled. They stick together because they vary in shape. They still remain single entities, never forming one single thing, but appear to be so.

The Origin of the Cosmos

7. [Leucippus] After breaking off from the boundless, many atoms of differing shapes and sizes enter a great void. This produces a vortex and spins wildly. The spinning causes the heavy atoms to cohere together in the middle. This is how earth was born out of the vortex. It is like a membrane and captures every atom it touches. The vortex spins the atoms joined together and dries them out. These become stars.

The Classical Mind

W.T. Jones

Chapter 3 - The Atomists (continued)

Atomism's reply to Sophism

• They fought against the skepticism of the Sophists and the subjectiveness of Protagoras
• Epicurus attempted to combat the subjective nature of the Sophist teaching by claiming that properties belonged to atoms not the senses. Unfortunately, his analysis of sensory perception was wrong and his theory must be rejected.
• Democritus conceded that it is subjective knowledge we have of colors and various properties, but it was all illusionary anyway, since only the void and atoms, which are qualitatively neutral, exist.
• Democritus admitted subjectivism, but that it had a physical explanation of atom combinations, which was objective
• Since the subjective experience is based on objective atoms there can be right and wrong, which is contrasting to the Sophists who held all was purely subjective and thus impossible of error
• Sophists' skepticism did not just reject sense perception. It rejected knowledge of objective truth via reason, objective values and objective ethics.

Psychology

• The mind is material. It is a physical organ. It is merely an aggregate of atoms.
• The only difference between humans and inanimate objects is the particular way the atoms in the mind are grouped

Nature of Thought

• Thought is a motion of atoms composing mind.
• Sensation is motion of the mind.
• The thought motion is truer than the sensation motion because it is more direct.
• The difference between reality and appearances is the difference in atoms moving.
• If this theory is correct, and every thought is merely a movement of atoms and atoms are infinite in number, how is it so that in an infinite amount of time it took so long for this combination of atoms to reveal the way thoughts occur?
• If every thought is merely a motion of atoms, premises, arguments, conclusions and evidence are meaningless. They are merely atomic motions and one need not precede the other.

The Problem of Free Will

• Free will has to be illusionary in the atomist theory.
• The jostling of atoms in your mind would dictate every decision.
• Whenever you believe you are choosing to do something really atoms are reacting to their hosting in a determined fashion.
• Democritus accepted this inevitable account of Free Will, but Epicurus could not.
• Epicurus utilized his "swerve" theory to explain free will. Some times atoms swerve to the volition of the mind atoms.
• The swerve however, does not prove free-will. It proves complete and utter indeterminism. Everything happens by random chance of such and such a swerve.

Further difficulties in the Atomist's account of thought

• When you focus on a particular thing, according to the atomists, it is because thing X's atoms are jostling with your mind atoms. But it seems implausible that thing X's atoms just happen to jostle your mind atoms and cease exactly when you stop thinking about them.
• Lucretius attempted to explain this problem away with the swerve theory, but that reintroduced the problem of randomness
• How can the atomists account for abstract thought? What is sending out atoms to cause mind-atoms to think on justice? They would say that your mind atoms are being jostled by some physical object's atoms that is justice, but during their journey to your mind atoms they have been jostled in a way to remove the concrete element of thought.

Ethics

• The atomists disagreed sharply in Ethics.
• Democritus focused on physics theory, but his ethics seem to have been noble and exalted.
• The goods of the soul were higher than the goods of the body/
• Upright behavior and complete understanding were the way to happiness.
• "Not from fear but from a sense of duty refrain from your sins. He who does wrong is more unhappy than he who suffers wrong" (Jones, 101).
• Strength of character was noble.
• Moderation was the means to the chief end: Tranquility.
• Contentment was valued
• Things that upset the soul were not good.
• Tranquility was a state in which the soul was calm and strong, free of fear, superstition or any strong emotion
• Democritus' interest in ethics was practical, not theoretical
• He disagreed with the Sophist notion of subjective values, maintaining values were objective.
• As in his physical theory, things were neither fully subjective nor fully objective in his ethics.
• But ethics are really meaningless since judgements, pain, happiness and all emotions were illusionary because only atoms and the void were real.
• "What is objective is the Atomists' theory of value is not valuable, and what is valuable is not objective" (Jones, 103).

Evaluation of Atomism

• While there are many objections to Atomism,a s a whole it is a vastly superior achievement to any theory preceding it.
• It is very straightforward and clear. While it breaks down, it is clear enough to be reformulated in a way that it might not break down.
• Their physical theory is a very good sketch of the way modern physics views the world.
• The Atomists revived the Greek's faith in science against the skepticism of the Sophists. They did not have an answer for the ethical and religious skeptical Sophism.
• "According to the Atomists, man is no more than a collection of atoms suffering from some extremely odd illusions" (Jones, 106).
• Atomism is unsatisfactory to people who hold ethics, religion and politics as important. Anyone who sees meaning in life will reject atomism.

The Epicureans

(Originally Written July 15. 2006 in Book 4)

The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell

Chapter 27: The Epicureans

Epicurus founded the Epicureans. He was a poor Athenian colonist from Samos. He was born around 342-341 BC. He was taught by Nausiphanes, a follower of Democritus. He eventually founded a school in Athens and died there in 271-270 BC.

Despite a childhood wrought with turmoil, he was a pleasant man.

He formed a community around his school. The community lived simply for two reasons:
1) Principles
2) A lack of money

Side note:

I'm watching a show on exorcism on Discovery Channel right now. I believe that all "possessions by demons" should be viewed skeptically, but never completely denied. There is a spiritual realm and possessions can occur. The problem is there is no real (physical or sensible) way of measuring it. Unsuccessful exorcisms or 'misdiagnosed' possessions do not negate the reality of possessions, only a bad theology. Just as bad theology does not negate the existence of God, it does not negate the existence of demons. Bad theology simply points out the fallibility of man's mind and his incapability of understanding and thus, impossibility of practicing true faith.

Side note done.

They were ascetic, not because goods were intrinsically evil, but because luxuries often carried unneeded baggage and unscrupulous desires.

Epicurus suffered from bad health his entire life. He was uncommonly resolute to this condition. Despite his sickness and poverty, he took good care of one of his disciple' children. Metrodorus had died and Epicurus took his children in and took care of them. When he was dying he wrote a letter to a friend urging him to take care of these kids after he himself died. In spite of the fact that the letter was written on the day of his death, the letter was quite upbeat.

Despite his pleasantness to mankind, he was vicious in his attacks on other philosophers, especially his teacher Nausiphanes, whom he called the Mollusk. This viciousness led him to a severe form of dogmatism.

Epicurus' teachings were to be unquestioned by his followers. This proved true even still when Lucretius put Epicurus in poetic form centuries later.

Epicurus' philosophy was designed to achieve tranquility in a hostile, chaotic world of post-Alexander hellenism.

He believed that pleasure was the good. Pleasure of the stomach was the root of all good. Pleasure of the mind was the reflection of the mind on bodily pleasures.

He distinguishes between dynamic and static pleasures, thus denying any form of hedonism. Dynamic pleasures come from attaining something and is accompanied by pain. Static pleasures are simply enabling a constant equilibrium.

Violent joys are dynamic pleasures and cannot be had without pain. Thus, static pleasures, which cause equilibrium ought to be more desirable because there is no pain in a state of equilibrium.

For Epicurus the absence of pain, not the pursuit of pleasure is the aim of his life.

The greatest good is prudence, even greater than philosophy.

Epicurus defined philosophy as a practical system to secure a happy life. Common sense, not logic or mathematics was the only thing needed for philosophy.

Public life was disdainful for Epicurus because it caused other men to envy them.

Sexual love, the highest dynamic pleasure was obviously banned. "Sexual intercourse has never done a man good and he is lucky if it has not harmed him" (Russell, 245).

Oddly enough, Epicurus loved children and relied on other people to break his rule to enjoy their company.

Lucretius, his later poetic follower did not disapprove of sex if it was divorced from passion.

Friendship was the highest social interaction for Epicurus.

Despite his selfish philosophical views, he loved friendship and saw it as an end in and of itself.

He thought fear to be one of the strongest and most pervasive of all evils. The two sources of fear were religion and the dread of death.

Epicurus was a materialist, but not a determinist.

Epicurus believed the gods existed simply because the idea of god was so widespread. The gods though did not meddle in human affairs, in life or in death.

The only prominent disciple of Epicurus was Lucretius (99-55 BC).

Lucretius was drawn to Epicurus because Lucretius was wildly passionate and severely ate to pain. Epicurean indifference and method of overcoming pain was a savior to Lucretius. It doesn't seem to have worked as Lucretius suffered a bout with insanity and eventually committed suicide.

Linehan- obviously Epicureanism works well.

Lucretius believed Epicurus to one the destroyer of religion and wrote about him in an ironically religious tone.

Yet another Russell attack on Christianity: "The Philosophers took refuge, with the few exceptions in Neoplatonism; the uneducated to various Eastern superstitions and then, in continually increasing numbers to Christianity" (Russell, 251).

Russell: I put my faith in men, guided by philosophy.

Linehan:

Men are fallible. Their philosophical truths, even more fallible. I have no faith in man nor in their philosophies. All men are blind by their innate rejection of truth. When we systematize rejection of truth, as philosophy often does, that innate rejection of truth is further cultivated. Only a systematic rejection of the systematic rejection of truth will begin to free us from our pitiful state of existence. For those of us who have caught this disease of systematically rejecting truth, which is philosophy, we can only hope to stumble upon a philosophy which is a systematic rejection of systematic rejection of truth. Theresa one Truth, but many roads that lead to it. (There are even more roads that lead away from it).

A philosopher demands systematic proofs. Thus only logical systematic proofs will entice us to trade a road to truth. A new aged minded person, who practice mystical revelry will be enticed by the mystical revelation of truth. Thrill seeking hedonists have to be enticed by the pure joy one captures when finding and embracing the truth. Truth can be reached via many roads. While these roads are enticing, they are bought. The roads that lead away from truth are at least as enticing and at first glance are not marred by the obstacles of the roads to truth. The further we travel along these roads, the harder it is to turn round towards the truth. Augustine offers a prime example of both the difficulty of this and the rewards of success.