At the same time we must laugh and philosophize, do our household duties and manage our business, and never cease proclaiming the sayings of the true philosophy. – ES 41
Recently, a fellow SoFE member cited this saying to me, stressing that we MUST laugh, that it is an order, not a suggestion. This was in the context of a discussion on how, of all the attributes that a person needs in order to be able to profit from the study of philosophy, the person’s attitude or disposition (diathesis) is surprisingly more important than many other attributes. Yes, we want students of philosophy to be knowledgeable, and ideally happy, but even if they’re beginners with little more to offer, so long as they have a good disposition, slowly they will profit, learn, and become happy with the use of the tools that philosophy gives. If they have the wrong attitude, they will not profit.
Epicurus expressed this by saying that his Doctrines are not for everyone, but only for those who are “armed for happiness“. We are left to determine what it means to be armed, or prepared, for happiness. It seems to imply that a certain attitudinal training, or the cultivation of healthy and happy dispositions, is required. Later Epicureans (like Philodemus of Gadara and Diogenes of Oenoanda) also stressed the importance of diathesis in their writing, with Diogenes stressing that our dispositions are under our control.
But why must laughter be part of our practice of philosophy, and part of our art of living (techné biou)? Laughter is a concrete instance of pleasure, manifesting and asserting itself as sound vibration, as tremor and movement in the body and mind, making itself concrete. Some specific object of our attention produces a concrete joy. Our disposition or attitude can not be known by others, except if it produces concrete instances of pleasure, the signs of which are laughter and other behaviors. If we cultivate a certain disposition, if we are armed for happiness, there have to be “fruits”, signs, observable expressions of this in our behavior: our willingness to laugh at ourselves and at events, an ease of enjoying simple things, our gratefulness, etc.
Furthermore, the cultivation of a sunny disposition creates a positive feedback loop or virtuous cycle. Studies suggest that just as people who are always angry, look mad and ugly, similarly people who are happy and confident are also more attractive. Laughing makes us radiant, and is contagious.
The Laughing Philosophers
It makes sense that laughter should be one of the basic philosophical exercises in our school. Epicureans fall within the lineage of the laughing philosophers, which begins with Democritus–the inventor of atomism–who was called the “laughing philosopher” because he made cheerfulness his cardinal virtue, and because he laughed frequently at the folly of human nature. I delve a bit more into the relation between laughter and materialism in this essay about the history and utility of comedy.
Friederich Nietzsche, in Thus Spake Zarathustra, elevated laughter to the status of a holy practice.
Laughter is holy. All good things laugh. – Nietzsche
But he went further. You see, Nietzsche specifically chose the prophet Asho Zartosht as the mouthpiece for his own philosophy for a reason. (I am using the Persian name in order to differentiate the historical Zartosht from Nietzsche’s Zarathustra). It may surprise some that the Iranian prophet Zarathustra himself was a laughing philosopher: there’s a legend that says that he was born laughing. The first monotheistic prophet appears at the dawn of recorded history, is pre-Abrahamic, and therefore not yet tainted with the asceticism or with the Platonist hatred for the world that we would see in later “prophets”, and which would find its most sick expression in figures like the “prophet” Mani–who blended Platonism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism into what seems like a mishmash of world-hating ideas.
In contrast, the Persian philosopher and moral reformer Zartosht was not at all a world-denying philosopher. He said: “Happy is the one who brings happiness to others“, and one of the main mantras of Zorostrianism (the Ashem Vohu) equates Asha (righteousness, truth, or justice) with Ushta (pleasure, happiness). Ushta (happiness), then, became the sign that righteousness was being properly honored and practiced in the world. This reminds us a bit of Epicurus’ Principal Doctrine 5.
Nietzsche chose Zartosht as his spokesperson because he considered him a worthy philosophical enemy, one whose ideas could still be reformed and useful. Like Zartosht, Nietzsche conceived of a cosmic battle–but not between “good” and “evil”. Nietzsche’s Neo-Zoroastrian battle is a battle between Laughter (light, lightening up, dancing, leaping) and the Spirit of Gravity, which pulls us down and represents a regressive instinct. Nietzsche’s “Ahriman” (“evil” “spirit”) is recognized for its inability to laugh.
I should only believe in a God that would know how to dance. And when I saw my devil, I found him serious, thorough, profound, solemn: he was the spirit of gravity. Through him all things fall. Not by wrath, but by laughter, do we slay. Come, let us slay the spirit of gravity!
When Asho Zartosht spoke of “spirits”, the word he actually used was Mainyu. This translates into “mentality”, or “disposition”. Spenta Mainyu translates as something like “Progressive, or Constructive Mentality”, while Anghra Mainyu is “Regressive, or Harmful Mentality”. Another name for Anghra is Aka Mainyu (the “Sick, or Evil, Mindset”). Asho Zartosht taught that these two basic dispositions are “twins” congenital to human nature, born together in our souls, and the more we “feed” them, or “sacrifice” to each, the more they strengthen. He taught that we co-create our worlds through these two basic mentalities by our choices and rejections of concrete thoughts, words, and deeds.
However, as his philosophy evolved within the context of its religious trappings, these “Mainyu” became mystified. Spenta Mainyu evolved into the Christian Holy Spirit, while Anghra Mainyu evolved into the Devil. People adopted an obscure and superstitious interpretation of them, moving away from the original psychological insights.
As Epicureans, we reject the mythologized and absolute understanding of Regressive and Progressive Mentality as two cosmic forces. Instead, we may look at our choices and rejections in terms of what type of mentality is behind each impulse we feel, perhaps by naming them “the better” and “the worse” mentalities at the time–since our cosmological model is not absolute, but always relative or relational. This would help us to practice paying closer attention to our choices and avoidances, and to our dispositions, cultivating the healthier ones (which are advantageous for our happiness), and rejecting the sick ones (which are harmful to our happiness).
Laughter as a Practice
I’ve written an introductory set of considerations for how to practice Epicurean Saying 41, which is the most overt call for laughter as a philosophical practice in our extant Epicurean writings.
Laughter yoga has demonstrated effectiveness in reducing pain and is used in therapeutic settings with cancer patients. Ultimately, it is up to us as individuals to choose to develop a regular practice of laughter, and to incorporate it in concrete ways into our hedonic regimen. This can be as simple as a weekly gathering of family or friends, a funny movie, or a formal session of laughter practice.
“Life is not serious: only graveyards are serious“. – Atheist Indian guru Osho, in his sermon against the repression of laughter
Further Reading:
6 Reasons Why Laughter Is the Best Medicine