If the things that produce the delights of those who are decadent washed away the mind’s fears about astronomical phenomena and death and suffering, and furthermore if they taught us the limits of our pains and desires, then we would have no complaints against them, since they would be filled with every joy and would contain not a single pain or distress (and that’s what is bad).
What are the things that produce the delights of those who are decadent? Some may say prostitution or endless pursuit of sexual pleasures, or endless desires (over-eating, abuse of drugs or alcohol). The PD says we DO have complaints against them (but it has nothing to do with the pleasure we gain from them): they are not productive of tranquil pleasure, their delights come with inconveniences. This Doctrine helps with hedonic calculus.
Anxiety often manifests as bored craving for needless things, or fears about not having those things. Extravagant, wasteful, licentious, or libertine pleasures are not necessarily “bad” so long as we understand the limits of nature. Principal Doctrine 11 is the doctrine of science as a means:
If our suspicions about astronomical phenomena and about death were nothing to us and troubled us not at all, and if this were also the case regarding our ignorance about the limits of our pains and desires, then we would have no need for studying what is natural.
Both PDs 10-11 remind us that only empirical knowledge (epilogismos or empirical thinking) can tell us about the limits of nature. This Doctrine specifically explains the purpose of studying nature, that the study of nature is the cure for problems related to inherited superstitions, and that science is a means to our tranquility and happiness. Also, it says here that science is necessary to remove these fears and apprehensions; this is not to say we should not study nature beyond this (if it brings pleasure, or if it helps in some other way), but that this is the amount that falls within the category of necessary knowledge. There are three categories for what is necessary in the Letter to Menoeceus, and one of them consists of what is needed for our happiness–which includes some measure of scientific knowledge. This, naturally, has repercussions for the philosophy and practice of Epicurean education.
Polystratus, the third Scholarch of the Garden, said that if we pursue virtue without the study of nature, our virtue will degrade into nothing, have no utility, and may result in arrogance and superstition. We see this today among the practitioners of conventional religions, for they are often hostile to the advance of science and fanatical in their views. Therefore, without the study of nature, we say that it is also useless to pursue virtue (regardless of how well-meaning we are). PD 12 continues attacking our suspicions about the myths:
It is impossible for someone who is completely ignorant about nature to wash away his fears about the most important matters if he retains some suspicions about the myths. So it is impossible to experience undiluted pleasure without studying what is natural.
This doctrine helps to cure fear of hell and of gods, and other fear-based superstitions, by pointing to the study of nature. I am reminded of the founder of Atheist Republic and his attempts to commit suicide as a teenager because of his deep fear of the Islamic hell, which was instilled in him when he was growing up. The Epicurean Doctrines accentuate, more than once, that the study of nature (philologia) is necessary for happiness, and to heal the diseases of the soul that keep us from being happy.
Concerning the issue of “suspicions”, let us bring this word into relief in order to accentuate it against the mention of the word “gnomé” (conviction, judgment) in PD 28, the Doctrine of the utility of dogmatism, where Epicurus says: “you must KNOW these things!”. Here, the Hegemon requires a full cognitive commitment and assimilation of the Doctrines from the disciple. The key-word of this Doctrine is gnomé, which shares semantic roots with “to know”, “knowledge”, and “conocer” (to know) in Spanish.
Epicurus always carefully chose his words, which makes them particularly powerful. Notice (and contrast) the power and medicine of these two words: when we discuss “suspicions”, we are not giving credit to the relevant truth-claims. We are dismissing them as mere “suspicions”, whereas the truths we gain from the study of nature are knowledge. We do not suspect them, we KNOW them. We should seek to imitate Epicurus’ mastery of his choice of words for accuracy and clarity. PDs 13 and 14 are about safety.
It is useless to be safe from other people while retaining suspicions about what is above and below the earth and in general about the infinite unknown
PD 13 continues the reasoning of PD 12. Why is this a separate PD? It deals specifically with safety, which is in the category of natural and necessary pleasures. By attacking our “suspicions” based on fear-based superstitions, these Doctrines invite us to have a firm conviction and a clear understanding based on the study of nature. We must not be wishy-washy, or give the benefit of doubt to superstition for reasons of political correctness, or of tolerance, etc. as this leads to degrading superstition. To avoid giving undue credit to the suspicions about the myths, we must have a firm conviction (gnomé) in the scientific worldview, with no room for “suspicion”.
Epicurus in his ethics is concerned about the quality of the direct, immediate experience of the sentient being, and whether it’s pleasant or painful. True to this, he uses the word asphaléias not merely as security from other men and external threats (as important as those are), but as a subjective experience. He’s interested in security, surety, certainty and a sense of safety as a psychological or existential state. He wants us to know and feel that we are really safe, to experience inner, psychological safety. He says that without this, if we still harbor suspicions that lead to irrational fears, no safety from external threats makes up for our lack of subjective safety. He establishes a connection between subjective safety from superstitious fears and safety from external threats because he wants his disciple to pay attention to how safety feels in his soul.
And so the disciple must sincerely introspect concerning his opinions and suspicions, and align them with the study of nature and with his own advantage, fearlessness, and pleasure.
Although some measure of safety from other people is based in the power to fight them off and in abundant wealth, the purest security comes from solitude and breaking away from the herd.
Doctrine 14 discusses the method of retreat. The word used here is hesuchia, which translates as peace, quiet, stillness, rest, silence. Epicurus established the doctrine of an Epicurean retreat, presumably because it’s useful to cultivate ataraxia, which requires safety. We may consider this retreat in terms of an actual hermit tradition of the Gardens, but “breaking away from the herd” can be practiced in a calm oasis of peace in the middle of a city. The original Garden was at the margins of Athens. So each practitioner must consider what level and form of hesuchia passes hedonic calculus.
Doctrine 14 should inspire us to make our homes into holy places of retreat, peace, safety, and tranquil pleasure, wherever our homes may be. It calls us to actually take the care and time to enjoy the warmth, familiarity, love, and the other pleasures of privacy and safety among those we care about. It inspires us to separate the space set aside for our true, natural community from the spaces occupied by the mobs. In these places of refuge, of hesuchia, it is easier to enjoy the pleasures of peace and safety.
