Category Archives: epicurus

Happy Twentieth! Epicurean Gratitude Prayer

Eikas cheers to all! We have a new Society of Epicurus Q and A. This month, Psychology Today published the essay It’s time to give up the ghost idea, which presents arguments that are very in line with Epicurean philosophy concerning the Platonic / supernatural soul. On our social media, we have been sharing quotes from Mill’s essay / short book titled On Liberty, which was a great pleasure to read.

The YouTube channel Real History published Herculaneum: A Fate Worse Than Pompeii, Vesuvius Uncovered, which focuses on the archaeological discoveries at the site. We have uploaded recordings of several of our past Eikas programs for the educational benefit of all:

November 2021 – The Method of Multiple Explanations
January 2022 – On Moral Development
February 2022 – Coping with Loss and Mortality
March 2022 – Friendship, A Divine Good
April 2022 – Parrhesia, the Practice of Frank Criticism
June 2022 – Issues in Epicurean Friendship: Marriage and Sex
July 2022 – The Women of the Epicurean Garden

The various decisions that have come out of the current conservative Justices of the US Supreme Court in recent weeks have created a new paradigm in terms of civil rights. Never before in US history had so many civil rights been under threat of being rolled back. Never (at least in recent memory) had this much religiosity sought to shove itself into our private and public lives. Curious addendum to our last Eikas message on the nature of rights. And never since the Spanish Inquisition had fascist elements within the Catholic Church had so much power over the judicial branch of a Western country’s government.

Of the court’s decisions, the one favoring prayer at public events is a disturbing one for those of us who strongly support the separation of church and state, since this looks like government-endorsed (and perhaps enforced?) religiosity. But that’s outside of our control (except, maybe, when it’s time to vote). When I think of constructive Epicurean answers to the crisis our Western secular values are in, I remember that Epicurus was not against public piety–even if he must have shared my suspicions about the type of religious propaganda that often finds its way into public prayer … but then again, even Jesus in Matthew 6 shares my suspicion.

If you’re an Epicurean (or an Atheist or Humanist), and wish to be a cooperative and engaged citizen, and you are called upon to pray, and you wish to use a prayer that is aligned with the study of nature, then here is a prayer that Epicureans have been using for over two thousand years:

“We thank Nature because she made the necessary things easy to get, and because the things that are hard to get she made them unnecessary.”

The prayer paraphrases insights from the meleta derived from Principal Doctrines 26, 29 and 30. It’s also an opportunity or reminder to engage in the practice of gratitude, which is beneficial for our happiness. Also, since Epicureans do not believe in petitionary prayer (except as poetry), our gratitude prayer is probably our most prudent and constructive contribution to the discussion of prayer in the public sphere.

Society of Epicurus Q & A

How long has SoFE been around?

The Society of Friends of Epicurus was founded on the 16th of February of 2013. For more about the SoFE, please enjoy the video SoFE: a philosophical community. We also have an About Us page.

What writings do you consider authoritative or canonical?

Our tradition emanates mainly from the Principal Doctrines and the Epistles to Menoeceus, Herodotus, and Pythocles, as well as Epicurus’ Final Will and Testament. Most of our sources ultimately came through Diogenes Laertius’ tenth book of Lives of Eminent philosophers. As secondary sources, we use the six books in Lucretius’ De rerum natura, the scrolls of Philodemus, and portions of Diogenes of Oenoanda’s Wall Inscription.

What do Epicureans believe?

Things are made of matter, our opinions should be based on the study of nature, friendships are sacred, and life should be lived pleasantly.

Is Epicureanism a religious identity?

Most of us see it as such. For more, please read the essay Epicureanism as a religious identity. The basic argument is that Epicurean philosophy fulfills the seven dimensions of religion recognized by anthropologist Ninian Smart. This includes ethics, community, scripture-like texts, a calendar, regular gatherings and traditions, rituals (particularly Eikas), etc.

For the purposes of legal challenges in courts, Epicurean philosophy also provides ethical and philosophical guidelines that could be defended in the court of law on the grounds that they are sincerely held beliefs. For instance, if there’s ever a case where a person might be forced by the state or by a Christian or Muslim majority to undertake some action which may be objectionable because there is no empirical evidence to justify it, or because empirical evidence contradicts it or deems it harmful, the individual could claim that he follows Principal Doctrine 24, which establishes a taboo of separation of that which is clear and evident from that which is not yet clear and evident.

How does one celebrate Eikas?

The SoFE guidelines include two elements: the Libation (this is simply a toast in memory of Epicurus and Metrodorus, as per Epicurus’ Final Will) and the Program (an educational component related to philosophy). Our Eikas programs usually last about two hours and are done via zoom. This video delves into Eikas in more depth

I am doing a student (or media) project and have questions?

Please feel free to contact us at friendsofepicurus@gmail.com.

How can I help promote Epicureanism, or help you in your mission? I want to volunteer?

Please feel free to contact us at friendsofepicurus@gmail.com and tell us about your skill set.

How can I join?

Our main virtual space is the Garden of Epicurus facebook group. From there, you would get invited to our Eikas zoom meetings. After over a year of fruitful and friendly participation, Friends are eligible for membership in the SoFE.

Hiram Crespo Q&A

The following questions were submitted to Hiram Crespo, founder of SoFE and author of Tending the Epicurean Garden and other books.

(RF says:) To what degree does aesthetics play within Epicurean philosophy?

From the founders, we have this saying:

I spit upon beauty and those who admire it, if it brings no joy. – Epicurean Fragment 512

He’s basically saying: “I spit on [aesthetics, art] if it does not produce pleasure“, so beauty is a potential means to pleasure.

As to the ontological status of beauty, a Herculaneum scroll titled “Irrational Contempt” by the third Scholarch of the Athens Garden, Polystratus, argues that beauty and ugliness both are real and both exist as relational properties of bodies. He compares this to when a magnet attracts some rocks but not others, or when a plant heals some diseases but not others, or when peanuts give allergies to some people but not others. These relational properties are real, but require interactions between two or more bodies to take place. In this way, he argued that the subjective experience of beauty and ugliness can exist in nature, in the bodies.

Beyond this, I’d invite you to read “The Sculpted Word“, a book on Epicurean sculpture and plastic arts and how they’ve been historically used in the recruitment of new Epicureans. This is the most in-depth evaluation of Epicurean aesthetics I know of. A modern French thinker who has been influenced by Epicurus is Michel Onfray, who views art as a means for the creation of meaning and takes the time to focus on and critique nihilist, psychotic art, which he perceives as a misuse of the meaning-endowing power and purpose of art.

Beauty has a history. – Michel Onfray

Onfray criticizes nihilist songs and movies that offer “no overcoming”, and artifacts as “altars to consumerist nihilism”. Onfray likewise is critical of the view that art changes or informs history, arguing that instead “art comes from history”. Material conditions exist first, and only then do ideas emerge from those conditions that are able to create art. He is arguing for a materialist, non-Platonic aesthetic.

(RF says:) How should I deal with anger?

A full review of Philodemus’ scroll on anger is beyond the scope of this Q and A, but a modern translation and commentary on the book is available from book sellers.

To summarize: the basic technique is to pause, and to figure out if your anger is natural and rational (does the initial pang of indignation point to a natural and necessary good being deliberately denied to you?). If anger is neither rational nor natural, it’s easily discarded. If you endorse the natural and rational anger, then you may choose to make it productive, to channel it into a course of action that leads to net pleasure. This is how we transform the poison of anger into the medicine of pleasure.

(RF says:) How can I find peace in such a chaotic world?

Study philosophy. Stay away from the news cycle. Spend lots of time with good, wholesome friends.

(RF says:) How do I stop the fear of death?

There are several therapeutic arguments in EP for dealing with death. Epicurus’ arguments concerning how death is non-sentience is found in Principal Doctrine 2 and in his Epistle to Menoeceus, where he argues from the ontological status of death as non-being by saying:

So death, the most frightening of bad things, is nothing to us; since when we exist death is not yet present, and when death is present, we do not exist. Therefore it is relevant neither to the living nor the dead, since it does not affect the former, and the latter do not exist. Most people flee death as the greatest of bad things and sometimes choose it as a relief from the bad things of life. But the wise man neither rejects life nor fears death.

Philodemus’ scroll On Death is a compilation of all the repercussions of PD2, and it’s also available in translation with commentary. Lucretius offers other therapeutic arguments: the symmetry argument compares the time after we die with the time before we are born. Both are eternal and, just as we do not remember what happened before birth, similarly we will not remember what happens after death. Another Lucretian argument compares death to sleep. A careful study of all these sources will help you to cognitively assimilate Principal Doctrine 2 in all its repercussions.

(JW says:) Perhaps some clarity on Epicurean attitudes to love and sex, as well as to political action?

The Epicurean Guides left this:

[addressing a young man] I understand from you that your natural disposition is too much inclined toward sexual passion. Follow your inclination as you will, provided only that you neither violate the laws, disturb well-established customs, harm any one of your neighbors, injure your own body, nor waste your possessions. That you be not checked by one or more of these provisos is impossible; for a man never gets any good from sexual passion, and he is fortunate if he does not receive harm. – Vatican Saying 51

Which lists some of the potential dangers of passionate love, however some of the founders were themselves married, so clearly marriage can pass hedonic calculus and each individual must carry out his or her own calculus based on circumstances.

Concerning political action, Principal Doctrine 6 says that anything that we do for the sake of safety is naturally good (including some extent of involvement in politics), and Principal Doctrine 7 says that so long as we acquire safety from other men, we may have attained a natural good by political involvement, but if we do not, then we did not. So the key to consider is whether we are really pursuing a natural good, or an empty value.

(EJC says:) Can a person accept an Epicurean ethic without accepting an Epicurean metaphysic?

We don’t have metaphysics, only physics, and ethics are intertwined with the physics in a manner that is coherent. So while you could benefit from the ethics, without the physics you’re not on firm ground and you may probably encounter cognitive dissonance. Pierre Gassendi was a Catholic priest who attempted to syncretize his faith with Epicurean philosophy, but his system was incoherent. It’s not clear to me whether Thomas Jefferson believed in the afterlife, but he did not believe in the supernatural and his view of God was deist. It’s possible that Jefferson equated God with Nature, in which case we have no quarrel with that, and in fact replacing God with “Nature” is probably the most honest way to reimagine God as an Epicurean without falling into incoherence.

(GB says:) Central things I feel some distance to, but wonder about, is (1) how I am meant to experientially understand natural/non-natural desires, and (2) how I am meant to experientially understand necessary/unnecessary desires?

The problem of what is defined as “natural” was controversial even in the days of the Scholarchs Demetrius Lacon and Zeno of Sidon, who deliberated about this subject. Here is the meleta (deliberation) we have from them on the ambiguity of “by nature”:

The Scholarch Zeno of Sidon and his entourage had explored the ambiguities deriving from different meanings of the term “natural” this way: Man is said to be “by nature” a procurer of food, because he does this by unperverted instinct; “by nature” susceptible to pain because he is so by compulsion; “by nature” to pursue virtue, because he does it to his own advantage.

According to Demetrius of Laconia, the expression “by nature” in Epicurus’ statement does not mean without perversion or distortion, but freely, without compulsion or force. He may have said this because other Epicureans were arguing that naturalness is opposed to perversion (by culture, by convention, by upbringing, or by association), and it’s possible that these other Epicureans were on to something.

Based on all these instances, we see various ways in which something may be natural: it may be unforced or uncompelled; it may be advantageous; it may be sound, based on correct views and a correct assessment of relevant factors; or it may be an unperverted reaction to an intentional offense.

Therefore, we cannot presume to have a conclusive answer on the meaning of “natural” today if even Scholarchs of direct lineage were deliberating on this over 2,000 years ago, but we can rely on their interpretations, so long as they are not mutually contradictory.

Principal Doctrine 30 gives us insights into what would be an unnatural desire: if you get no pain when it’s unsatisfied, it’s a vain and empty desire. Also, if you must pursue it with intensity or great effort, it’s unnatural, because natural desires are easy to get by definition. Those are the two criteria for unnatural desires.

Those natural desires which entail no pain when unsatisfied, though pursued with an intense effort, are also due to groundless opinion; and it is not because of their own nature they are not got rid of but because of man’s groundless opinions.

Concerning unnecessary desires, Principal Doctrine 26 defines unnecessary desires (they do not lead to pain when unsatisfied) and says that if an unnecessary desire is harmful or difficult to get, we can easily get rid of it.

All desires that do not lead to pain when they remain unsatisfied are unnecessary, but the desire is easily got rid of, when the thing desired is difficult to obtain or the desires seem likely to produce harm.

So, based on all this, you should treat your desires as case studies and see to which ones these criteria apply, and practice Vatican Saying 71:

Question each of your desires: “What will happen to me if that which this desire seeks is achieved, and what if it is not?”

(EJC says:) What would be the purpose of devotional items for an epicurean? Are prayers offered to Epicurus? It seems like that wouldn’t be reconcilable with Epicurean Metaphysics and Epicurus’ views on death (i.e. the dead person not existing anymore)

Prayers are not offered to Epicurus, but the Doctrines are sometimes repeated and memorized. There is one fragment that demonstrates that ancient Epicureans offered this prayer to Nature itself: “We thank Divine Nature because she made the necessary things easy to get, and because the things that are hard to get she made them unnecessary”.

The SoFE accepts three interpretations of the gods as justifiable conclusions: the realist interpretation (gods are real, physical beings with bodies made of particles), the non-realist interpretation (gods are imagined constructs with ethical utility), and the atheist interpretation (gods do not pass the test of the canon and/or are not useful ethically).

The realists argue that the gods are real cosmic beings who emit particles that affect the psyche and give pleasure, but this view is challenged today by Epicureans who argue that, since the universe is expanding, the particles coming from extraterrestrial blissful beings would eventually stop reaching us.

The non-realists believe that, even if the gods do not exist, there are still benefits to pious practices, and they are interested in the psychosomatic effects of pious practices. This view is based on studies concerning chanting, meditation, and other pious practices that have health benefits. The reason why this view is justified is that Epicurus did say that to pray is natural, and one of the Vatican Sayings explains that the benefits of honoring a sage are for the one who does the honoring. Another reason why this view is justified, is that we have no evidence of the gods, but we do have evidence concerning the benefits of piety. Since our canon is based on epilogismos, or thinking pragmatically and based on evidence, therefore religious techniques are a legitimate way to practice Epicurean philosophy. Also, in this interpretation, the idea of theistic or non-theistic religion as art–or as a technique for living–can be explored.

The atheist interpretation is modern, and rejects the utility of piety as well as the ontological status of the gods. This view is respected, in part, because Philodemus said in his scroll On Piety that everyone should be considered impious, insofar as no one has been able to demonstrate the existence of the gods.

(from Caleb) I’m curious about your thoughts on why Stoicism seems to have gotten legs and taken off a lot faster than Epicureanism in modern times.

I think Stoicism is familiar to people who come from Christianity because they have come to accept Divine Providence, and many Christians practice Stoicism (for ex. The “serenity prayer”) without knowing they’re practicism Stoicism. And so people from a Christian background might consider Stoicism as a familiar way of thinking. Perhaps if more Christians were aware of the intersection between ancient Epicurean and Christian communities, they might think of Epicurus as a familiar figure.

One additional factor is that–as Michel Onfray has argued in his counter-history of philosophy–there have been attempts to erase Epicurus from history by both Platonists and Christians, and in academia. Lucian’s comedy Alexander the Oracle Monger shows that some ancient Pagans took to burning The Principal Doctrines after being mocked by Epicureans, so there was additional sectarian hostility from Pagans.

However, rather than focus on why other philosophies get more attention, I would challenge Epicureans to become more visible and to share Epicurean memes, teachings, and essays with others of like mind, as Epicurus advised in his Letter to Menoeceus. If more of us add visibility to Epicureanism, then EP will be more visible and people will have more opportunities to learn about it.

(from Caleb) I’m curious about how a modern Epicurean would address a circumstance in which it was fairly well empirically demonstrated that one of the traditional Epicurean tenets was inaccurate (hedonism, the afterlife, free will). I’m not implying that this has happened (or even could in one of those cases). I’m mostly curious about how one would navigate a situation when research no longer supports a defining teaching.

As to hedonism being “inaccurate”, I’m not sure how this would even be demonstrated. Pleasure and pain are experienced with enargeia (immediacy, clarity) and are subjective, so how can they be “inaccurate”?

As to the afterlife, NDE (near-death experience) research shows that the brain produces visionary experiences when deprived of oxygen, so it seems like our bodies have the wisdom to die in a manner that diminishes suffering. The visions people have when they report NDE’s are tied to what’s happening in the brain and do not prove the supernatural claims they often make (which are mutually contradictory, anyway). I’m not sure what would constitute evidence for an afterlife, since anyone having enargeia / clarity of its apprehension would have to be dead. Lucretius rejects the idea of reincarnation, by asking why we do not retain memory of previous lives.

Concerning free will, it’s not clear how it could be proven that we do not have free will, because for all practical purposes we observe choices, avoidances and rejections being made. The description of the natural process of choices and avoidances in the particles or bodies does not prove that choices do not exist, it merely shows a natural mechanism by which they happen. If one were looking for a non-natural mechanism for choices to happen, then one would be chasing a ghost. Epicurus replied to these challenges by saying that, judging by the logic of the question, the person who concluded that there is no choice and the person who concluded the opposite were pre-determined to conclude this way, and this does not change the practical repercussions of their views. Perhaps others have more satisfying answers to this.

It seems that the Epicurean attitude towards these questions has to do with the level of rigor with which we admit evidence for the claims being made, and with the nature and interpretation of said evidence.

One final note must be made here concerning the self-updating of beliefs in an evidence-based worldview. Epicurean beliefs are based on the evidence of nature, and the Epicurean canon (standard of truth) is empirical and pragmatic. If the evidence points to new data and new theories, we will continue to adjust our ideas about the nature of things, as all evidence-based thinking does. In this way–and unlike religious worldviews–Epicurean cosmology continues expanding and evolving, for instance, with exoplanetary and neuroplasticity research.

Most importantly, we will continue applying our methods of philosophy (pragmatic and therapeutic, for the healing of the soul) rather than turn to speculative methods.

Happy Twentieth! On the Nature of Rights

Eikas cheers to all our readers. This month, we discovered the video Lucretius the Epicurean Poet, a friendly and short introduction to Lucretius’ De rerum natura. We also published a book review of The Happiness Diet, and considered whether this means that the nutrients that are considered essential (that is, that our body cannot make on its own) for both health and happiness must be incorporated into our hedonic regimen.

The thought-provoking Psyche.co essay Don’t be Stoic argues that prominent ancient Stoics show Stoicism’s perniciousness as the “philosophy of collaborators”, and shares case-studies of how Stoicism encourages collaboration with tyranny and cruelty by convincing people to completely submit to fate. In my mind, this is only a little different from Catholic instructions to “bear your cross”.

The essay Classifying the Epicurean Goods, by Alex R Gillham was shared with us. It invites us into a discussion of the “immortal goods” that Epicurus mentions in his Epistle to Menoeceus, and into what other goods exist in our ethics. It’s beyond the scope of this Twentieth message to delve too deeply into the essay, but I will mention that one method that Epicureans may use to move from the abstract to the concrete is to refer to them in the plural. In this case, “The Good” (which is a Platonic idea) is transformed into something useful and concrete–“the goods”. Even better–the author mentions intrinsic goods versus instrumental goods, etc., with specific mention of which goods are being discussed. This specificity de-Platonizes the Good and/or naturalizes the goods.

Today I’d like to consider the case study of the Pallini Declaration, better known as the Declaration of the right of happiness in the European Union, in light of Epicurean doctrines on justice and on the canon. The Pallini Declaration was co-edited by a group of Epicureans from Greece in 2014, with the intention of requesting that the European Union recognize the right to happiness as a foundational European value. Here is the Declaration:

One of the main foundations of European civilization is philosophy. Aristotle and Epicurus realized that the purpose of philosophy is happiness (well-being). Epicurus taught that happiness corresponds to absence of mental and physical pain and may be attained though observation of nature, prudence, free will, virtue and friendship.

Many centuries later, in 1776, the main author of the American Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, influenced by Epicurus’ teachings, included among basic human rights the right of pursuit of happiness. In 2012, the United Nations decided to recognize that the pursue of happiness is a fundamental human goal and right, designating the 20th of March of every year as International day of Happiness.

Given the fact that the right to pursue happiness is not included in the 54 articles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2010/C 83/02), we ask for the recognition of this right of happiness in the European Union, since it is self-evident that it is a fundamental human right and its non-recognition in any part of the world constitutes the violation of this natural right.

The Friends of Epicurean Philosophy “Garden” of Greece
4th Pan-Hellenic Symposium of Epicurean Philosophy
Pallini, Athens, Greece
February 15, 2014

The Pallini Declaration was unveiled during the Epicurean philosophy symposium in February 2014 at Gargettus, in the Municipality of Pallini, where Epicurus had his ancient Garden. The webpage for the Declaration contains some historical background, which ties back to the Greek Constitution and social contract, and reflects the Epicurean conception of agreed-upon law based on the principle of “not harming and not being harmed” (see Epicurus’ Principal Doctrine 31). There were 114 signatures on the Declaration, in honor of the 114 articles of the Greek Constitution.

The following is my meleta on the Pallini Declaration, which is a type of humanist and Epicurean manifesto.

The first paragraph contains three statements which are historical and not controversial, except that some people may have an issue with the statement that some philosophers have “realized” that happiness is the goal of life. This implies that the statement is a discovery and an insight or realization, not an invention. I do not take issue with this–in fact I affirm it–, but I realize that this is a doctrinal statement, framed within the larger tradition of humanist manifestos that includes the Declaration of Independence, the US and French Constitutions, and other documents that are meant to be treated as both social contract, as well as doctrinal (humanist) manifestos.

The second paragraph contains two additional historical statements, which are treated as precedents. It is here that Pallini Declaration appeals to Thomas Jefferson and the Enlightenment ideas that inspired him. In the third paragraph, the Declaration seeks to have a new statute added to what is seen as the social contract that applies to all Europeans.

The Declaration places the “right to happiness” within the context of European values, and ties these values to a shared heritage–which is claimed for all Europeans. Pallini is today where the ancient neighborhood of Gargettus was, where Epicurus founded his Garden around 2,300 years ago, and which for centuries was the seat of the Epicurean Mother Garden. By accentuating its place of origin, the Declaration is an acknowledgement of the deep Epicurean roots of Western civilization. It is a statement of our shared Western values, and claims some level of Epicurean identity or heritage for all Europeans.

Are Rights Self-Evident, or Fictional?

That people have a right to happiness is not exactly what Epicurus argued: he taught that pleasure is a faculty that is native to our organism (“congenital to our nature”) and necessary for our choices and rejections, and that it helps us to discern the natural and pragmatic goal of life. He made a claim about nature, not about rights. The Pallini Declaration is making a new claim, an evolution of that original claim. And it makes a policy recommendation to government.

This level and type of involvement in public affairs is perhaps an innovation, but I argue that this innovation is rooted in Epicurean philosophy. From the perspective of the Doxai, this form of activism in favor of the inclusion of a “right to happiness” as a statute within the official social contract for all Europeans is, among other things, a way of practicing the Doxai on justice (PDs 30-38).

The Pallini Declaration is silent on the nature of “rights”, which can be argued to be fictions written into our legal systems. But notice that it still affirms their utility! From the perspective of the Doxai, by making this particular policy recommendation, the Declaration says that we find it advantageous for mutual association (see PD’s 37-38) to include happiness among the named human rights in our social contract or legal code. In other words, rights (even if fictional) are treated as concrete tokens of Epicurean justice. They’re agreements: useful statutes, or contracts, agreed upon for the sake of mutual association.

This social contract is the means by which Epicureans define justice in concrete terms. By explicitly naming itself Epicurean, the Declaration further recognizes that the right to be happy, once enshrined formally into the social contract and into the cultural and civilizational identity of all Europeans, will help to set the foundation for an Epicurean sense of justice or righteousness in the societies that uphold it. In other words, the recognition of this right to happiness will be a matter of justice and of the social contract, the formally agreed-upon values of all Europeans, and–once enshrined as law–it will be considered unjust to violate this right.

But let us look at the ontological status of rights, since there seems to be an unresolved controversy here. Most humanists believe that rights do not exist conventionally. They are not god-given, as many have claimed, and in fact many of the rights we enjoy today required generations of struggle to attain. But while these rights may be fictions in some sense, they’re still agreed-upon values which, by virtue of the shared agreement among the members of a society, have political and social power. They serve as guidelines for policy and are useful for co-existence. They have utility.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – United States’ Declaration of Independence (edited by Epicurean founding father Thomas Jefferson)

The framers of these humanist manifestos–from the founding fathers to the authors of the Pallini Declaration–are making claims about natural rights which invite a reassessment of the fictional nature of rights. They are taken to be “self-evident”, which is another Epicurean statement of doctrine, and in fact this can also be claimed about the nature of Epicurean justice: that justice can be observed with enargeia (clearly or self-evidently) based on its utility or benefit for mutual association. Since the authors of these manifestos are claiming enargeia (clarity, immediacy of experience) for these truth statements, I argue that they are making specifically Epicurean statements of doctrine that are based on our methods of studying nature. We saw in Principal Doctrine 22 that enargeia is part of the Epicurean toolkit, and that this particular Doctrine is found among the four canonical Doxai that act as a filter for truth claims.

While, to us, the Creator is nature, Jefferson was comfortable using the term “Creator” within the social contract to establish an ecumenical conversation between the various flavors of Christians and Humanists that deliberated on this particular social contract. Concerning life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we observe that humans are often willing to die for these principles, that without them it’s impossible to live well and pleasantly, and that they make life worth-living. Happiness and life (together with health) are included in the three categories of natural and necessary desires that Epicurus mentions in his Epistle to Menoeceus. Therefore, Epicurus was making similar (though not identical) claims in this epistle as Jefferson was making in the Declaration of Independence.

We have reason to be undecided as to the nature of these natural rights. On the one hand, Epicurean philosophy teaches that these rights are self-evident, and therefore that they’re not entirely fictional: they are self-evident and exist in some way. On the other hand, rights are not conventionally real–that is, they are not made up of particles. They seem to be relational, social and cultural products born from our mutual agreement and based on our mutual benefit. I wish to note here how Epicurean justice imitates the tendency towards symbiosis in nature, a system by which living bodies show a tendency to develop mutually-beneficial relations. The bottom line is that the pragmatic necessity of justice makes things like laws and rights a needed feature in all human-centered philosophy.

These are some of our initial deliberations on this, not the final word. We will continue our meleta about the nature of human rights. I’m curious to know what others think.

Happy Twentieth! Principal Doctrine 22: Enargeia and Epilogismos

Eikas cheers to all our friends! This month, the Philosophy Tube channel posted a video presentation titled Transhumanism, which poses some of the same questions concerning the role and utility of technology that were posed when we did meleta on the myth of Prometheus. Someone recommended An Antidote to Dissatisfaction, an educational video on the anthropology and utility of gratitude, and I gave an interview to Argentinian Spanish-language podcaster Pablo Veloso on the book by Norman DeWitt St. Paul and Epicurus, for which I have published a transcript of the English translation for all my Patreon subscribers, regardless of level of support.

The Doctrine of Epilogismos, or Empirical Thinking

Following up on last month’s indictment of the philosophers of the polis (those who “philosophize” for the state) who are willing to place a spurious stamp of “truth” on disinformation, today I wish to continue expounding the Canon (our “standard” of truth, which comprises our epistemology) by sharing a few notes on the Kyriai Doxai. The Canon is an essential part of the Epicurean philosophical Toolkit. Principal Doctrines 22-25 constitute the “Canonics” portion of the Doxai. To these, we may add many commentaries by Lucretius, Norman DeWitt, Philodemus, Diogenes of Oenoanda, and others.

The Literal Interpretation of Doxa 22

You must reflect on the fundamental goal and everything that is clear, to which opinions are referred; if you do not, all will be full of trouble and confusion.

τὸ ὑφεστηκὸς δεῖ τέλος ἐπιλογίζεσθαι καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν ἐνάργειαν, ἐφʼ ἣν τὰ δοξαζόμενα ἀνάγομεν· εἰ δὲ μὴ πάντα ἀκρισίας καὶ ταραχῆς ἔσται μεστά.

Principal Doctrine 22

The following are the transliterations and translations for this Doxa:

To yfestekos – you must reflect on

Dei telos epilogizesthai – on the pragmatic goal

Kai pasan tes enargeian – and all clear things

Ef en ta doxazomena anagomen – To which opinions (doxa) are referred

Ei de me panta akrisias – if you do not, all will be full of confusion (akrisias, or not knowing how to proceed or how to think)

Kaj taraxes estai mesta – and trouble / perturbation

The second and third sentences in this Doxa remind us of how much of a reality-based philosophy this is. “Enargeia” refers to clear, direct, evident, and immediate / unmediated experience. “Telos Epilogizesthai” implies that this telos (goal) is not an abstract or imaginary goal. It has (if we are to judge from the adjective added to it in this Doxa) a goal that is more than mere telos, it’s PRACTICAL THINKING based. It is defined by “epilogismos”. This is our methodology of empirical and pragmatic thinking. Epilogismos is most often translated as the faculty of empirical thinking.

Part of what this Doxa is saying is that the telos (or goal of nature) can be discerned easily by what is known and experienced directly (enargeia), so that it’s pragmatic, useful to our nature. It’s also implying that, in all things, it is important to think clearly on what we are trying to accomplish. This serves the purposes of clear thinking and clear speech, which are among the benefits of the Canon.

Later on in the Doxai, PD 25 deepens our understanding of the Epicurean type of Telos, where it says that the goal of nature is practical while other goals lead to apraxia (impracticality, inability to practice): “your thoughts and your actions will not be in harmony”. I sometimes associate this with inauthenticity, but it seems that the main argument made in the Doxai is against apraxia, and that praxis or practicality is being affirmed here as a positive value.

In the next sentence, this Doxa says that our opinions must be referred to the directly experienced things (pasan tes enargeian) and to the pragmatic goal (telos epilogizesthai). These two criteria are part of the filter for inherited or posited ideas that philosophy furnishes. All our views must pass through this filter. In this way, the Canon is the great purifier of knowledge, helping us to separate that which is clear and evident from that which is not yet clear or evident.

Of this fourth sentence, we should also note that the second of the four Doxai that deal with the canon (PD 23), which follows this one, also mentions that we need something to refer to when investigating the truth of things. PD 24 then warns us against rejecting the criterion or standard of truth. That is the central theme of the four canonical Doxai: that we MUST have clear and practical standards of truth, with the Doctrines elaborating on what must be included as part of it, and leaving us to carry out meleta in order to fill the gaps–for instance, on how to apply these standards specifically in each instance, or in each field of knowledge.

The Therapeutic Interpretation of Doxa 22

This Doxa names two specific types of evil–taraxes and akrisia. In doing so, it invites us to consider how we may identify them by concrete signs, and diagnose them.

When we consider this, epilogismos and enargeia come into relief not only as standards of a reality-based philosophy, but also as medicines for these named evils. In order to deepen our understanding of this teaching, the ancient Epicurean Guides (like Philodemus) helped their disciples to consider how to study, diagnose, and treat these two types of evil.

Taraxes translates as perturbations, sometimes as troubles. Within the therapeutic interpretation, this Doxa brings the medicine of a-taraxia (non-perturbation) if practiced.
Akrisia means confusion–as in not knowing how to proceed, or how to act, or even how to think. Within the therapeutic interpretation, this Doxa (together with the other Doxai in the canonics) brings the medicine of clarity and diffuses confusion, helping us to think, speak, and act with clarity.

The Hegemon said that philosophy that does not heal the soul is no better than medicine that does not heal the body. At the Society of Friends of Epicurus, we therefore consider the therapeutic method of interpretation to be one of the correct ways of interpreting them. However, it’s not the only correct interpretation, since we accept a method of multiple interpretations, which allows for a type of multiverse of perspectives that can be correct (Please indulge my Doctor Strange reference–I recently watched it and enjoyed it!).

Final Note

I hope that I’ve brought some new aspect of the Doxai to your attention. If you are a sincere student of Epicurean philosophy, my hope is that you will at least learn, deliberate on, and practice these two canonical concepts in greater depth: enargeia and epilogismos. They will equip you to think clearly and usefully, and protect you from akrisia (confusion) and taraxes (perturbations), as well as from apraxia (impracticality).

Podcast: St Paul and Epicurus (English translation)

Happy Twentieth! On Philosophy as an Antidote to Disinformation

Happy Twentieth! We see the harms of willful ignorance everywhere these days. It’s easier for some philosophically-lazy souls to make truth a filthy thing than to embrace candor. Truths are seen as inconvenient, and honesty is not their main virtue. Truth requires a bit of discipline. Standards must be set, faculties must be used. To believe that our will is more mighty than nature is the thinking of sorcerers and wizards. This is an ancient problem. It’s not new. Against this backdrop, Epicurus taught that we should navigate these waters with the help of the canon of nature: an empirical, pragmatic standard of truth.

The problem of willful ignorance is exacerbated by the opportunism of those who stand to benefit from it. The events in Russia continue to shed light on the societal problems created by propaganda and misinformation. We have seen how public health has been greatly affected by misinformation in recent years. During the pandemic, we naturally wanted to educate people (particularly those we care about) in the hopes of maximizing their survival chances. The medicine for what I will call post-truth syndrome lies in the healing words of philosophy. The ancient Epicurean Guides wrote this into their social contract:

If you fight against all your sensations, you will have no standard to which to refer, and thus no means of judging even those judgments which you pronounce false. – Principal Doctrine 23

The video Aleksandr Dugin: ‘We have our special Russian truth’ caught my attention as I was educating myself about Russian propaganda, and trying to figure out the reasons why Russia continues to fall into extreme levels of authoritarianism. Putin’s Russia today is not too different from the Tsar’s regime from over 100 years ago, which inspired the most notorious revolution of the 20th Century. Yet today, Russia has little to show for all the sacrifices of its previous revolutions. I believe this has to do with the population’s propensity to fall for propaganda, and with the lack of free speech and the lack of a variety of narratives.

Dugin is one of Putin’s “philosophers”, a post-modern post-truth charlatan, and a great case study for identifying pseudo-philosophers. For the purposes of educating ourselves as Epicureans, Dugin is useful for understanding the importance of the canon–the Epicurean name for the pragmatic, empirical standard of truth which helps us to separate that which is clear and evident from that which is not, as instructed in Principal Doctrine 24. To us, this standard includes the faculties of pleasure-aversion, and the five senses.

Dugin is a post-modern extremist who argues that all “truths” are relative, and therefore the lies of Russian propaganda are dignified as “special Russian truths”. If this was a legitimate philosophical claim, it would be the case that water is NOT in fact made up of oxygen and hydrogen molecules (at least not in Russia, because they have “special” truths there). If all relative truths deserved the label “truth”, this would imply that there are no falsehoods, or that there is no possibility of falsehood and error, which is obviously a mistaken conclusion.

Those making this declaration that all truths are relative and, therefore, valid (even if mutually contradictory), have given up on any kind of standard of truth, and so have no filter by which to discern truth from untruth, and no way to protect themselves from error. We are not the first Epicureans to note the problems that come with the systemic denial of truth, when it presents itself as true philosophy. Diogenes of Oenoanda, in the 2nd Century CE, wrote this on his Wall Inscription:

Now Aristotle and those who hold the same Peripatetic views as Aristotle say that nothing is scientifically knowable, because things are continually in flux and, on account of the rapidity of the flux, evade our apprehension.

We on the other hand acknowledge their flux, but not its being so rapid that the nature of each thing is at no time apprehensible by sense-perception. And indeed, in no way would the upholders of the view under discussion have been able to say and this is just what they do maintain that at one time this is white and this black, while at another time neither this is white nor that black, if they had not had previous knowledge of the nature of both white and black.

Again, elsewhere in his Wall Inscription, Diogenes of Oenoanda says:

The Socratics say that pursuing natural science and busying oneself with investigation of celestial phenomena is superfluous and unprofitable, and they do not even deign to concern themselves with such matters. Others do not explicitly stigmatise natural science as unnecessary, being ashamed to acknowledge this, but use another means of discarding it. For, when they assert that things are inapprehensible, what else are they saying than that there is no need for us to pursue natural science? After all, who will choose to seek what he can never find?

Out method of multiple explanations does allow for a variety of interpretations of the evidence of nature, but it does not allow for infinite varieties of “truth”. To dignify all claims as “truths” (even if relative ones) and to engage in this extremist (ideologically-inspired, propaganda-inspired) form of relativism–with no anchor whatsoever in the study of nature–is no different from saying that there are no truths. The word truth has lost all value and utility. “Truths” in this scheme are, in actuality, the opposite of truth claims. It’s a cynical and radically-skeptical outlook in life. It’s also impractical, except for the power-hungry.

What does this do to science, which is predicated on building knowledge on top of previously established and clear knowledge? If there are no empirical or pragmatic standards to call something a “truth”, can anything at all be established scientifically, as a working theory with concrete pragmatic repercussions? Dugin’s cynicism, if sincere, is impractical. If insincere (which is the most likely case, in my opinion), then it’s cynical and nihilistic at its core, in addition to impractical.

Modern attempts to (sincerely or not) uphold this post-modern epistemology in the service of authoritarian ideology result, as we see, in the idiotic and fanatical defense of propaganda, and we are seeing how profoundly dangerous this is to democracy and to the rule of law. It also empowers evil and corrupt leaders (like Putin) in their inability to discern the limits of nature and other important Truths, so that their megalomania and their harmful demagoguery is never checked.

In contrast, Epicurus wants us to awaken our faculties. When we learn to use the canonical faculties that nature bestowed us with, we become emancipated from the need for propaganda, for priests, for demagogues, for logicians, for peddlers of false truths and pseudo-philosophies, and we learn to reason for ourselves, using our eyes, our ears, our touch, our pleasure faculty, and always diligently inferring about the non-evident based on that which is evident in order to avoid error.

If you’d like to learn more about the Epicurean canon, I would recommend you read the middle portion of Liber Qvartvs (the Fourth Book) of Lucretius’ De rerum natura.

Further Reading:
The Epicurean Canon in La Mettrie

Report from the 2022 Epicurean Philosophy Symposium in Athens

My Epicurean friends

I hope you are well, despite the Ukrainian crisis and related humanitarian misery that Putin’s sociopathy has caused. As we Epicureans know well, it is Putin’s great fear of death that has created all that lust for power, money and cynical display of force against his adversaries. I hope we are not witnessing what our forefathers witnessed 83 years ago when Hitler’s sociopathy was in action.

Anyway, I am sending you the report on the 12th Panhellenic Symposium of Epicurean Philosophy, as promised. You may use it as you wish.

With Epicurean friendship
Christos

Report

12th Panhellenic Symposium of Epicurean Philosophy
19-20 February 2022
Co-organization: Friends of Epicurean Philosophy “Garden of Athens” and “Garden of Thessaloniki” – Municipality of Pallini

Internet Broadcast on YouTube and Facebook

Information: www.epicuros.gr

The philosophical psychotherapy of Epicurus in our time

In today’s Greece of the pandemic of the coronavirus and the ongoing psychological pressure, the 12th Panhellenic Symposium of Epicurean Philosophy was held online. The Panhellenic Symposium on Epicurean Philosophy is the largest annual philosophical conference held in Greece and at the same time the only conference on Epicurean Philosophy held annually in the world.

The Panhellenic Symposium of Epicurean Philosophy has been organized for twelve consecutive years. During the decade 2011-2020, it was attended every year by 300-500 delegates at the Cultural Center of Gerakas, in ancient deme of Gargittos (Gargettus), the place of origin of the philosopher Epicurus’ family. Last year and this year, due to the pandemic, the Panhellenic Symposium was watched online by more than 1000 people via broadcast on Facebook and Youtube.

The Mayor of Pallini Athanasios Zoutsos launched the beginning of the Symposium, which was greeted by friends of Epicurean philosophy from Greece, Cyprus, Italy, USA and Australia. On the first day, professors of the National Kapodistrian University of Athens George Chrousos and Christos Yapijakis (School of Medicine) and Vangelis Protopapadakis (Department of Philosophy) discussed topics related to the Epicurean philosophical medicines for mental health and stress management. Furthermore, some of the most interesting presentations regarding the Epicurean approach to modern era issues included the original study of an ancient papyrus of the Epicurean philosopher Philodemus by the philologist Dr. Eleni Avdoulou, the description of the senses by Epicurus which has a great correspondence with that of modern neurobiology by the phycisist Giannis Alexakis, the similarities of the Aristotelian and the Epicurean approach on friendship by the philologist Dr. Elsa Nikolaidou, the Epicurean way of thinking as a means to tackle problems in the modern rapidly changing world by the informaticist Takis Panagiotopoulos, as well as the proposed Epicurean simple sufficiency coupled with a reduction of the economy by the economist Nikos Graikousis.

On the second day, there was an emphasis on wide spreading of Epicurean philosophy in Roman era, which has much in common with modern multicultural Western societies. Some of the some of the most interesting presented topics included the Epicurean poet Lucretius by the Academician and Professor of Latin Philology of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Theodore Papanghelis, the philosopher Philodemus by the pharmacist Litsa Pitsikalis, the Epicurean writer Lucian from the Thyrathen publicer Giannis Avramidis, as well as Cicero’s works as source of Epicurean philosophy by the civil engineer Leonidas Alexandridis.

Furthermore, the Epicurean methodology of Canon as a tool for solving everyday problems was presented by the legal-private employee Dimitris Liarmakopoulos and the Epicurean approach in recognizing fake news on the internet was discussed by the economist and founding member of ellinikahoaxes.gr George Giotis and the lawyer Antonis Bilisis.

In addition, this year for the first time in the Panhellenic Symposium of Epicurean Philosophy there was an International Section in English with renown friends of Epicurus from Europe (Greece and Italy), USA and Australia. Christos Yapijakis, professor of Genetics at the School of Medicine of the National Kapodistrian University of Athens and founding member of the “Garden of Athens” (Greece) referred to the “Scientific Humanism of Epicurus” as the best way of thinking and acting for humanity in our difficult current times and then led the discussion with the International and Greek delegates. Hiram Crespo, author-blogger and founder of the Society of Friends of Epicurus (Chicago, USA) with the assistance of his collaborators/friends presented “Society of Friends of Epicurus: a Philosophical Community”. Geoff Petersson, lawyer-blogger and founder of the “Garden of Sydney” (Australia) presented “Comments on the Four-Part Cure from Downunder”. Cassius Amicus, lawyer- author-blogger and founder of Newepicurean.com (Atlanta, USA) discussed “An Epicurean Response to Plato’s Attack on Pleasure”. Last but not least, Michele Pinto, journalist-blogger, president of World of Epicurus/Mondo di Epicuro (Senigallia, Italy) in his presentation “Epicurus, philosophy and optimism” suggested that it is advisable to follow Epicurus’ advice and make each day better than the previous one. In the discussion that followed experiences in individual countries were shared as well as the best Epicurean publications in different languages.

The artistic program of the Panhellenic Symposium featured the dramatic reading of the poem “Triumph” by Kostis Palamas by the actor Gerasimos Gennatas. The poem refers to the cultural triumph achieved by the Roman Epicurean Lucretius with his majestic and timeless poem “On the nature of things” and the huge difference it had with the triumphs of his contemporary plundering generals of Rome.

For the twelfth consecutive year, the opportunity was openly given to the public to experience the scientific humanism of Epicurus’ philosophy, which offers a timeless mental shield against the universal psychological, social and cultural gridlocks, facilitating the pursue of a happy life in the simplest and most natural way, with wisdom, friendship and solidarity, even in difficult times.

You can watch the videotaped Symposium at: www.epicuros.gr

Dr. Christos Yapijakis, DMD, MS, PhD

Some Thoughts on the High Holidays

Happy Twentieth and Happy Day of the Hegemon! This month, I published a book review of Uniqueness of Carvaka Philosophy in Indian Traditional Thought, and an essay On the Harm and Benefit of the Gods based on our sources, and also citing the essay Epicure, dieu et image de dieu: une autarcie extatique. My essay An Epicurean Perspective of Holiness was featured on the Spiritual Naturalist Society.

I facilitated last month’s Eikas meeting (the facilitator is chosen by rotation) where I focused on Epicurus’ book On moral development, and the many commentaries that Philodemus gave us on this subject. These insights are best studied through Tsouna’s book The Ethics of Philodemus, which teaches us many things about economics, visualization techniques, maximalism, and about the Epicurean theories about and methods of studying the virtues.

One of the insights I derived from a focused study of Epicurus’ theories on moral development is that the Epicurean Guides used SWEETNESS as an incentive for moral develop in the absence of supernatural claims about punishing gods, karma, reincarnation, or other such claims. Since there are no supernatural punishments, we use the natural faculty of pleasure, and we use sweetness, to encourage ourselves and our friends to engage in correct behavior and to become morally better.

This is by pure coincidence, I’m sure, but I recently noticed that the high holidays of both the Jews and the Epicureans fall on the tenth day of the seventh month in their respective calendars. In Laertius’ Book Ten, Fragment 18, we read:

And from the revenues made over by me to Amynomachus and Timocrates let them to the best of their power in consultation with Hermarchus make separate provision for … the customary celebration of my birthday on the tenth day of Gamelion in each year.

This is from Epicurus’ Final Will, and Gamelion is the seventh month in the Attic calendar. The tenth day of the seventh month (in a different calendar) also marks Yom Kippur, which is the Day of Atonement for Jews. In Leviticus 16:29-31 it says:

This is to be a lasting ordinance for you: On the tenth day of the seventh month you must deny yourselves and not do any work—whether native-born or a foreigner residing among you— because on this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. Then, before the Lord, you will be clean from all your sins. It is a day of sabbath rest, and you must deny yourselves; it is a lasting ordinance.

Although the two High Holidays are of very different natures, they also share similarities other than their place in the calendar. Yom Kippur (“the Sabbath of Sabbaths”) is much more than a day of atonement, although rituals of atonement are prominent. Kippur means atonement, but also cleansing. It’s also a yearly renewal of a Jew’s commitment to his covenant, to his relation with his god, and to his identity. The entire community came together and people reconciled–the tribe or community became whole, healthy and happy again.

In modern times for Epicurus’ birthday, Epicureans in Athens hold their now-traditional annual symposium. Though not quite as intense as Yom Kippur (which was the only time the High Priest ever entered the Holy of Holies and uttered his god’s name, and these things were done quite dramatically), the symposium in Athens is, to date, the biggest gathering of kindred minds in the modern world. The symposia, like the Day of the Hegemon, are gatherings of the Epicurean communities that are marked in the calendar in memory of Epicurus and as a solemn observance of his birthday.

This year, the Greek symposium in Athens will be hosting an international portion where people from all other parts of the world (including the members of SoFE) will give short video presentations in English. The dream is to eventually have English-language international conferences beyond Greece in places like Australia and the U.S.

We thank our Friend Beryl, who submitted a poem for Hegemon Day titled “Celebrate A Life”:

Can you accept friendship
At the gate of life
As the soil and green shoot grow together?

As the rains of life pour down
Can you smile
Knowing it’s just the weather?

When in learning, head bowed down,
Can you accept direction
Without a frown?

Like the bowing heads of trees
Accept correction
From the breeze.

Are you able to hold you gently
Compassion at the things you say
Treating others the same way?

In politics as in life
Can you cut through deception
To reality like a sharpened knife

In our work as in the bedroom,
Can you rejoice and be free
As the song bird alighting on a tree?

And when winter calls you home
Can you recall your friends delight
Closing eyes to enter night?

Come celebrate with me
And as the apple falls from the tree
Reside in pleasure and be free.

Book Review: Uniqueness of Carvaka Philosophy in Indian Traditional Thought

India’s problem turns out to be the world’s problem. The problem’s name is God. – Salman Rushdie

Over the years, I have taken an interest in sister traditions to Epicureanism that have emerged elsewhere: the sumac kawsay philosophy of South America’s indigenous populations, the pleasure-ethics of the Taoist sage Yang Chu, and the Lokayata (aka Charvaka) School of India.

There isn’t much left on the Charvaka tradition–the most concise ancient introduction I found are fifteen statements that comprise the Lokayata chapter of the Sarva-Siddhanta-Sangraha. All that is left of their ancient writings are commentaries by enemies. The book Uniqueness of Carvaka Philosophy in Indian Traditional Thought by Bhupender Heera caught my attention because it promised to fill the information gap, so I have enjoyed reading it, and this is my review of it.

Of their character, although they were greatly maligned by the orthodox, I found this quote which reminded me of (biographer) Laertius’ defense of the character of Epicurus from the attacks of his enemies:

Under the heading “Nastika” Abul Fazl has referred to the good work, judicious administration and welfare schemes that were emphasised by the Charvaka law-makers.

While searching for evidence of a Charvaka movement in India–and trying to discern the extent to which it’s a living, evolving, modern tradition–I came across this Charvaka Manifesto, where we see the beginnings of a (much needed) neo-Charvaka revival in India which is inspired, in great part, in the New Atheism personalities like Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins. Salman Rushdie is, of course, also among the influences in modern Charvaka, as are the modern political and social realities of India, and (since India is so close to the Islamic world) there is some solidarity with the ex-Muslim movement.

The fervor towards a reform or evolution of the Charvaka Philosophy is inspired, in part, by accusations of being anti-social that go back to over 2,600 years ago, and which parallel the treatment Epicurean philosophy has also often received. Orthodox Hindus consider that there are four aims of life: pleasure (kama), wealth (artha), duty (dharma), and liberation (moksha). Charvakas originally only accepted the first two, and rejected dharma or virtue (which involved upholding the caste system) and moksha (liberation, salvation or redemption is typically interpreted in religious terms). Some modern Charvakas argue that if dharma is only understood as treating others fairly and kindly, then they can accept that; and that they understand death as liberation, or moksha.

The enjoyment of heaven lies in eating delicious food, keeping company of young women, using fine clothes, perfumes, garlands, sandal paste … while moksha is death which is cessation of life-breath … the wise therefore ought not to take pains on account of moksha. A fool wears himself out by penances and fasts. Chastity and other such ordinances are laid down by clever weaklings. — Sarvasiddhanta Samgraha, Verses 9-12

The view that there is a soul separate from the body, which on reaching the other world enjoys rewards, is like the hope to get tasty fruits from the big flower of a tree in the sky. – Prabodhacandrodaya, Act II, Sloka 16

The Sub-Schools

There are two camps within Charvaka: The Dhurta Charvakas deny that the soul exists, while the Susikshita Carvakas say that the soul exists as long as the body lasts. This group is subdivided into the Dehatmavada (soul = body), Indriyatmavada (the soul is the senses), Mano-atmavada (the soul is the mind), and Pranatmavada (the soul is the vital breath). Aviddhakarṇa, Bhavivikta, Kambalasvatara, Purandara and Udbhatabhatta are the five commentators who developed the Charvaka system in various ways.

It would be interesting to evaluate (perhaps in the future with other content) the merits of each sub-school’s potential arguments. That so many different views coexisted among the Charvakas should be a testament to the robust, free-thinking intellectual life that they once had, and reminds us of the many schools that also existed under the umbrella of the Cyrenaics.

Some Terms

The author notes that “there is a huge aversion to the body in Indian thought“. Instead, Charvaka is a world-affirming (pravitti) philosophy, whereas from the Charvaka perspective, ascetic religious philosophies are nivrtti (world-denying). To Charvaka disciples, heaven is pleasure, hell is pain.

The author rejects the nastika (heterodox) classification for Charvaka within Indian philosophical systems, and instead prefers to classify Charvaka as “non-Vedic”. In order to be a heterodox/non-Vedic philosophy, it always and necessarily self-identifies in contrast to whatever is “orthodox” or Vedic. Therefore, I think both labels fail to appreciate the mortal blow on religiosity and the pre-scientific impulse that is Charvaka’s insistence on a canon of sense perception–even if this canon has not yet been perfected, in my view. Charvaka philosophy recognizes pleasure and the senses as guides, but rejects common-sensical methods of inference, and this is one of its main weaknesses–or a main target for potential reform by the Neo-Charvakas. For instance, in page 67 the author makes the argument that materialists can’t assert universal truths, but this is true only for materialists who adhere to the old Charvaka epistemology that rejects methods of inference. Modern scientific materialism is not of this kind, and neither is Epicurean materialism.

On the Need for inference: Consciousness and Matter

Charvaka teaches that “consciousness is born from elements just as seeds of kinva (fermenters) produce intoxicant“. This is a fascinating insight: 2,600 years ago, a group of materialist Indian philosophers compared awareness or consciousness to other biochemical processes (in this case, fermentation). They viewed consciousness as an organic, natural phenomenon, and used a metaphor that would have been at home in De Rerum Natura.

The author of “Uniqueness of Charvaka Philosophy” argues (correctly, in my view) that therefore the Charvakas DO infer by analogy in the case of the above-quoted proverb. He also argues (correctly) that the Charvaka MUST infer, and since inference is not part of their method, this renders their method inconsistent or impossible to practice. This is known as the problem of apraxia. Impracticality.

Conclusion

The author of Uniqueness of Carvaka Philosophy mixes praise with criticism in the book. He constantly acknowledges the “low position” or status of materialism, even as he acknowledges that it was initially the “only” system of philosophy worthy of its name. He apologizes for defending it, and uses terms like “gross” materialism or hedonism. At times, he seems to have acquired many of the biased attitudes he criticizes elsewhere: in page 33, he laments that “we are all Charvaka” today. In page 72, the author argues that the “body can’t cause consciousness”, and seems to endorse supernaturalism. In page 38, he accuses Charvakas of being extremists and entertaining “uncontrolled thoughts breaking loose from all restrictions”. Therefore, the reader of the book should know that the author is not entirely without bias.

Also, the reader should bear in mind that the author’s first language is not English. However, overall, considering the scarcity of material available in English, Uniqueness of Carvaka Philosophy is still a useful resource to get acquainted with the basics of the Charvaka system of philosophy.

Happy Twentieth! Philosophy as Self-care

Happy Twentieth to everyone and Happy 2022! The essay Victor Frankl and the Search for Meaning is a review of the best-selling book on logo-therapy and the therapeutic benefits of making meaning, written from an Epicurean perspective. Please enjoy our past Eikas essays, which have all been compiled here.

The essay Utility and Affection in Epicurean Friendship is in academia.edu.

“Practice these and similar things day and night, by yourself and with a like-minded Friend, and you will never be disturbed whether waking or sleeping, and you will live as a god among men: for a man who lives in the midst of immortal goods is unlike a mere mortal man.” – Epicurus, to Menoeceus

You may remember that the Letter to Menoeceus has a “meleta portion” with instructions on how to practice philosophy “by ourselves and with others of like mind“. Here, Epicurus uses the term “μελέτα πρὸς σεαυτὸν ” (meléta prós seautón) to speak of the practice of philosophy by oneself (se-auton).

We have touched on this, but not delved too much in depth into what it consists of, except to observe that it must involve a balance of both self-nurturing and self-discipline. Without self-nurturing, one risks engaging in ascetic self-abuse in the name of philosophy. Without self-discipline, one risks being too soft and fearful, and remaining unprepared for the occasional harshness of life.

According to the essay Ascetic self-cultivation, Foucault and the hermeneutics of the self, by Michael A. Peters:

“the word epimeleia is related to melete, which means both exercise and meditation”

Epicurus’ meléta prós seautón reminds us of epimeleia heautou–the Greek term for self care. In fact, the terms share semantic roots, and half of the meleta we are supposed to do (meleta by ourselves) could be characterized as self-care, or epimeleia heautou. If we search for epimeleia heautou or for self-care online, however, we will be taken in many unwanted directions. Many products are being sold in the name of self-care, and philosophers like Michelle Foucault and Pierre Hadot have influenced how people understand the term today. This can be useful, but within the Society of Epicurus we’re specifically interested in the Epicurean sense of self-care.

Let us unpack the twin notions of meléta prós seautón and epimeleia heautou into bits and pieces, so that it’s easier to appreciate why self-care is important.

It is impossible to take care of oneself if we do not have time for leisure, time to think and practice philosophy, time for introspection. So this practice of self-care must therefore be a feature of a certain civilized, self-cultivated quality of life that affords time for leisure.
A lifestyle of “self-care”–to whatever extent it is implemented–seems distant from the lifestyle that the polis / state requires of citizens, which involves preparing for warfare or for civil administration. It’s a private lifestyle that makes us look within and centers on intimate concerns. It therefore dignifies the individual.
Self-care requires that we assume, first, a degree of causal responsibility for our own happiness, dispositions, habits, and our choices and avoidances. It must therefore be a feature of moral maturity.
Again, in order to avoid the excesses of self-indulgence or self-abuse, it seems fair to say that self-care must include a balance of self-nurturing and self-discipline–which may at times require a willingness to rationally renegotiate and shift our emotional investment into greater degrees of self-love or self-reproach, as needed. This reminds us of Nietzsche’s declaration:

He who cannot command himself shall obey. And many a one can command himself, but still sorely lacketh self-obedience! – Nietzsche’s Zarathustra

Self-rule (autarchy) requires self-obedience: we do not truly rule ourselves if we do not obey ourselves also. Therefore, some of our ongoing projects of self-care must relate to autarchy (self-governance, or the art, science, and virtue of self-sufficiency).

In the second field of praxis (meleta “with others of like mind”), we rely on the efforts, wisdom, and example of others, who may also plant seeds in us and become the causes of our happiness, a benefit which we reciprocate. This field includes friendly conversation, the celebration of Eikas, the evaluation of case studies through the framework of philosophy, etc. But in the first field of praxis (meleta by ourselves), we rely on our own effort and we become the cause of our own happiness.
Self-care includes all the practices related to moral development (re-habituation, or turning away from vices and towards virtues), study (including the study of the self), memorization, repetition, carrying out our choices and avoidances with the help of the Doctrines, and any other practices of self-cultivation, contemplation, “placing before the eyes” (Epicurean visualization), or meditation that we find to be advantageous for our happiness.

There are many more techniques (like journaling) that could be incorporated into self-care, as well as circumstances (like the pandemic) that pose particular challenges. In the end, it’s up to each individual philosopher to adopt into her hedonic regimen whatever methods work for them. I hope that these initial deliberations help our readers to carefully consider and plan their own process of meléta prós seautón.