Do and practice (μελέτα), then, the things I have always recommended to you, holding them to be the stairway to a beautiful life …

So 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 merely mortal being. – Epicurus’ Epistle to Menoeceus

ταῦτα οὖν καὶ τὰ τούτοις συγγενῆ μελέτα πρὸς σεαυτὸν ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς <καὶ> πρὸς τὸν ὅμοιον σεαυτῷ, καὶ οὐδέποτε οὔθ’ ὕπαρ οὔτ’ ὄναρ διαταραχθήσῃ, ζήσῃ δὲ ὡς θεὸς ἐν ἀνθρώποις. οὐθὲν γὰρ ἔοικε θνητῷ ζῴῳ ζῶν ἄνθρωπος ἐν ἀθανάτοις ἀγαθοῖς.

The Teaching Mission: “Deliberate … with a Like-Minded Friend”

A good disciple is one that tries to follow the instructions of his teacher. Based on the early part, and the closing, of the Letter to Menoeceus, it seems that Epicurus would not consider us true and sincere disciples if we don’t dedicate ourselves to deliberating (meléta) about philosophy in two ways: both by ourselves and with others who are similar to us (of like mind, or who are at the same level).

Epicurus may have been thinking, when he wrote these words at the end of LMenoeceus, that since he (and perhaps his philosopher friends) took so much time and effort to organize the doctrines for the students, that he preferred that they honored his effort by multiplying the fruits of his effort. Hence, by closing LMenoeceus in this manner, Epicurus was basically saying: “Go share this with (those among) your friends who are like-minded intellectual peers”. 

This is how (what Norman DeWitt called) “the teaching mission” of the Epicurean Gardens began: there was an Epicurean interest in education, or rather re-educating both old and young. We can think of the Epicurean critique of paideia (traditional Greek education) in this light: it comes with an attempt to offer an alternative or an addendum to conventional education.

Who was studying philosophy in the Garden? We might surmise–from the invitation at the beginning of LMenoeceus to young and old to study philosophy–that the Garden had at least two educational curricula: one for youth, and one for elders–or at least one for beginners, and one for advanced students, as we can also imagine from the fact that new students were given the Little Epitome to study, and advanced students had other works to study. We have to imagine also that these curricula included the three bodies of the Epicurean wisdom tradition (canon, physics, ethics).

We can also surmise that the disciples to whom these works were dedicated were advanced and sincere enough, that they were entrusted to continue passing down these teachings. A good teacher would not entrust the “teaching mission” to just anyone: he would not give a doctrine to share if it’s incomplete, or if the disciple who receives it has not mastered the basics and isn’t able to lead a study group, at the very least. Although elsewhere we have a fragment that says that Metrodorus, Polyaenus, and Hermarchus were Epicurus’ ambassadors–we have here an invitation to missionary work not for the Guides (kath-hegemones) of the Garden, but for Menoeceus: a regular disciple. As Norman DeWitt said: “each one teach one“.

Since both the PD’s and the LMenoeceus seem to be conclusive summaries–which is why Diogenes Laertius included them in his biography of Epicurus–, we can surmise that by the time they were given to the disciples, the doctrines of the Garden had matured to a point that was considered sufficiently stable and complete to warrant such a definite summary.

Epicurus said that his teachings were not for everyone, but for those who are “armed for happiness“. While there was a clear hierarchy of knowledge in the Garden, we see in LMenoeceus that every Epicurean pupil was considered intelligent enough to be a “like-minded friend” to other Epicureans, and in this sense there was a form of equality (which manifests as like-mindedness) in the Garden even among slaves, women, and people of different classes.

Practicing Meléta

I’d like to direct attention to the word used here, which is sometimes translated as “practice these things“, or “ponder these things“. The word meléta (μελέτα) has several meanings:

to think carefully
to meditate upon
to give oneself totally to
to dedicate oneself to
to practice
to cultivate
to ponder
to deliberate

This process of pondering is, of course, mostly private, and it’s meant to ensure a full, sincere, cognitive assimilation of the Doctrines, and clear convictions. It also helps us to do the introspective work that the Doctrines sometimes challenge us with.

But there’s a second mode of study that Epicurus recommends. He says we should study with “kindred souls“. He uses the word omoion, which is related semantically to the English word “same”, and with the idea of a counterpart, a double, or equivalent.

Studying Philodemus, Lucretius, and the other great Epicureans of the past (and present) gives us privileged access to the meléta processes of previous generations and allows us to capitalize on their wisdom, and to participate in some way in the meléta of others, enhancing our own, and giving us a different perspective.

As an exercise to help us visualize what is meant by the closing passage of the Letter to Menoeceus, we could ask ourselves: “How do I practice meléta (as defined above) with others, and by myself?“. That is,

How do I think carefully on the Epicurean doctrines with others, and by myself?
How do I meditate upon philosophy with others, and by myself?
How do I give myself totally to EP with others, and by myself?
How do I dedicate myself to the study of philosophy with others, and by myself?
How do I practice EP with others, and by myself?
How do I cultivate Epicurean philosophy with others, and by myself?
How do I ponder EP with others, and by myself?
How do I deliberate about EP with others, and by myself?

This may involve study, reading, writing essays to document what one is learning, asking questions to those who are more knowledgeable, and having conversations with them online or in person. The point is that collective deliberation with knowledgeable Epicurean friends helps to catch most errors, and that by exposing us to frank criticism, collective deliberation helps us to develop a good character, to practice true friendship, and to gain knowledge.

Why should anyone trust that our words are true to the Principal Doctrines, if we are not knowledgeable? Knowledge is an important currency to us. In the Society of Friends of Epicurus, we believe in a hierarchy of knowledge, and place great importance in having knowledgeable Epicureans (preferrably, formal Guides who have been trained in EP) to study with.

Another point that must be raised is that proof is in the pudding: Guides must be happy. They must show in their own life that they are living pleasantly with the aid of philosophy. If a person seems unhappy, impractical, unfriendly, if he relies on Fortune for his happiness, or if she relies heavily on particular and obscure interpretations with no reliance on the PDs, you should look for other students to study with.

Knowledgeable friends or Guides must not harbor ill-will, which destroys philosophical inquiry and makes philosophy degenerate into ad-hominem attacks. That is not true meléta. Guides must give parrhesia with good will, and with a sincere investment in the happiness, wisdom, and good character of their friends. They must also frequently cite the sources, and give exegetical or interpretative insight about them, rather than merely rely on their own pre-established biases. When they do discuss their own ideas or those of non-Epicureans, these ideas must be: 1. in harmony with the rest of the Epicurean doctrine, and be 2. internally consistent (these are Epicurus’ two instructions for innovation).

Meléta is Both Passive and Active

I wish to mention here the essay by R Braicovich (which I recently read in Spanish) on the use of epitomes (summaries) by Epicureans, which cites the critique by some hostile scholars who say that the Epicurean practice of memorizing and repeating doctrines is passive and does not constitute true philosophy. In the essay, the author argues that part of the utility of memorization (and of an Epicurean education) is to assist people in the process of hedonic calculus, and therefore this process of memorization was not as passive as these hostile scholars claim. The author also mentions that the epitomes must either 1. be memorized or 2. studied in depth with tutors (to cite Norman DeWitt: “each one teach one“) or with other writings that explain our summaries, but our discussion of the end of the Letter to Menoeceus makes it clear that these two forms of studying are not mutually exclusive: they are complementary, and both are necessary. The bottom line is that Epicurean studies require both a personal cognitive commitment, as well as a community of friends.

Furthermore, the essay stresses that learning is not merely passive memorization and repetition, but that the doctrines of Epicurus are meant to aid us in carrying out our hedonic calculus and in our choices and avoidances. In other words, we must actively interpret the doctrines and use them as moral agents in the real world. The doctrines furnish theory, and we must furnish praxis.

Conclusion

Epicurus advises us to passively and actively deliberate on his doctrines and teachings both by ourselves (private meléta, which takes the form of reading, repetition, memorizing, and evaluating the doctrines against empirical case studies) and with others who are of like mind (conversations with friends, as well as indirectly by studying the writings of other Epicureans and learning from their own process of meléta).

Continue Reading: Epicurus’ Instructions on Meleta, Part II