Book Review of Epicurean Philosophy: An introduction from the “Garden of Athens”

Eikas cheers to all! The book Epicurean Philosophy: An introduction from the “Garden of Athens” was made public in the announcement related to this year’s annual symposium of Epicurean philosophy (the program for which is here), together with the following publications:

The educational efforts spearheaded by Christos, founder of the modern Epicurean Garden in Athens, and by some of the other Kathegemones (Epicurean Guides) in Greece, have yielded positive results, and documented the tangible benefits of philosophy in peer-reviewed studies. This is quite exciting, as it paves the way for future experimentation with similar curricula elsewhere. We are very proud of the work that has been done by the Epicureans in Greece.

I was most excited to hear about the English-language book that was published by the Epicurean Gardens in Greece, which harvests the wisdom gained by our friends for the benefit of the international community. In this essay, I review the book Epicurean Philosophy: An introduction from the “Garden of Athens”.

Epicureanism as a Scientific Humanism

The belief that exists about the nature of the divine as well as its influence on the world and humankind is also wrong and dangerous, creating fear and unrest as it attributes natural phenomena, human situations and behaviors to dark powers and divine intervention.” – Leonidas Alexandrides, Tetrapharmakos essay, p. 122

Throughout this book, we find an Epicurean conscience, perspective, and narrative of history, which inevitably includes a reaction against the terrors and errors of Christianity and of Christian hegemony or fascism. The editor refers to the Cristian Dark Ages (which, he admits, were not entirely dark since Epicurus was known to some intellectuals during the Middle Ages), calls the Christian Era “an interruption of 1,000 years of barbarism”, and frequently accentuates the scientific nature of Epicurean Humanism. Some people may be bothered by this characterization, but we must remember two things:

  1. The characterization is, frankly, accurate, and Epicureans have always been known for their parrhesia (frankness), both private and public, and
  2. The Greek Orthodox Church is just as toxic as the Evangelical Churches in the US. In 2018, the state in Greece stopped paying a salary to its priests only AFTER the considerable economic difficulties that Greece had faced in recent years, which were related to bankruptcy and chronic debt. According to this source, this decision was later reversed by conservatives, and the priests are now again on state payroll in spite of the continuing economic difficulties that Greece faces. This shows us how entrenched the church is in the power structures in Greece. Christos accentuates the virtues of secularism, of Enlightenment values, and of Epicurean philosophy against this background.

The point of this is that the liberating and enlightened way of thinking that Epicureans epitomize is clearly worth celebrating, when seen against the backdrop of the restrictive and harmful obscurantism that is prevalent still today because of Christian hegemony.

The Principle of Emergence

Among the trivia points that I found interesting in Christos’ presentation of philosophy, I found this in page 59:

Each composite body possesses properties that the particles comprising it do not possess (principle of emergence, the basis of chemistry). – 13th principle of atomic physics

The earliest instance of the emergent or relational properties of bodies is expressed in Epicurus’ Epistle to Herodotus. Later in page 88, Christos says that Epicurus

described the law of conservation of matter during chemical reactions, as Lavoisier rediscovered and named two millenia later. Therefore, Epicurus laid the foundations of the basic notions of chemistry.

In page 89, Christos quotes Lucretius to further accentuate how he discusses atoms binding together to form molecules (much of DRN is believed to be based on Epicurus’ 37 books On Nature):

Things which seem to us hard and compact are made of particles more hooked one to another, and are held together close-fastened at their roots, as it were by branching particles. – De rervm natvra, Book 2, 444-446

On Conceivability

Conceivability is one of the advanced or difficult concepts that I first encountered in Philodemus’ scroll On Methods of Inference. This book helped to contextualize the historical origin of this concept. In page 60, we read:

Epicurus, like the atom(ist) philosophers Leucippus and Democritus, accepted the Eleatic principle of ontological identification, which states that there is no reason why every real thing should not be conceivable.

Epicurus’ Influence on Modern Medicine

One of the most fascinating points made by the book is the claim (in page 92) that the modern medical division of acute pain versus chronic pain originates in Epicurus’ Principal Doctrine 4.

(the Epicurean) Asclepiades of Bithynia spoke of the pathology of molecules (the modern term is molecular medicine), overcoming Hippocrates’ theories of “the four fluids” …

He was the first physician to formulate the separation of diseases into “acute” and “chronic”, as an analogy with the fourth Principal Doctrine of Epicurus on acute and chronic pains. Asclepiades spoke of tiny invisible animals that live in stagnant waters and may cause diseases (microbes). He was the founder of Methodic Medicine (“methodos” implies systematic scientific investigation), which for half a millennium had been the only rational and scientific school of medicine in the ancient world that did not pollute medical practice with metaphysical beliefs based on divine intervention, astrological influence, and dream therapy.

Later, in page 100, we read that Asclepiades brought a scientific and compassionate approach to medicine:

Asclepiades adopted and applied friendly treatment and psychological support to patients … Influenced by an Epicurean quotation of acute and chronic pains, Asclepiades realized that some diseases are short-lived and should be treated immediately for healing. In contrast, others are chronic and incurable, and the best thing a physician should do is make the patient’s life more tolerable.

One reason why I love this passage is because it places before the eyes the actual utility and praxis of the very misunderstood Principal Doctrine 4, and in general of all the Kyriai Doxai. Many people forget that Epicurus himself suffered from chronic pain, that (true to his experimental and pragmatic canon) he tested Kyriai Doxai in his own body and experience, and that he primarily conceived of true philosophy as therapeutic. Asclepiades’ approach reminds us of the correct way to make use of Kyriai Doxai, which in this case helps us to proactively organize ourselves around our approach to and practice of pain management.

A Tetrapod or a Tripod?

Since the Canon (our epistemological system) is one of the most difficult aspects of Epicurean philosophy to explain to others, it’s beneficial to read how others understand and explain it. Christos comprehensively describes the Canon as a methodology, which includes two principles of confirmation (epimartyresis and antimartyresis). Christos says this is the source of the scientific method. We are still studying this at SoFE, but one source we found for this is in Sextvs Empiricvs, as preserved in a fragment known as Usener 247:

According to Epicurus, some opinions are true, some false. 

True opinions are those which are attested by and not contested by clear facts, while false opinions are those which are contested and not attested by clear facts. 

Attestation is perception through a self-evident impression, that the object of opinion is such as it once was thought to be—for example, if Plato is approaching from far off, I form the conjectural opinion, owing to the distance, that it is Plato. But then he has come close, there is further testimony that he is Plato, now that the distance is reduced, and it is attested by the self-evidence itself. 

Non-contestation is the conformity between a non-evident thing which is the object of speculation, and the opinion about what is apparent—for example, Epicurus, in saying that void exists, which is non-evident, confirms this through the self-evident fact of motion. For if void does not exist, there ought not be motion either, since the moving body would lack a place to pass into as a consequence of everything being full and solid. Therefore, the non-evident thing believed is not contradicted by that which is evident, since there is motion.

Contestation, on the other hand, is opposed to non-contestation, for it is the elimination of that which is apparent by the positing of the non-evident thing—for example, the Stoic says that void does not exist, something non-evident; but once this denial is put forward, then that which is evident, namely motion, ought to be co-eliminated with it. For if void does not exist, then motion does not occur either, according to the method already demonstrated. 

Non-attestation, likewise, is opposed to attestation, for it is confirmation through self-evidence of the fact that the object of opinion is not such as it was believed to be—for example, if someone is approaching from far off, we conjecture, owing to the distance, that he is Plato. But when the distance is reduced, we recognize through self-evidence that it is not Plato. This sort of thing turns out to be non-attestation.

So attestation and non-contestation are the criterion of something’s being true, while non-attestation and contestation are the criterion of its being false. And self-evidence (enargeia) is the foundation and basis of all [four] of these.

Unlike most of the Western Epicureans I know, Christos accepts a Tetrapod or four-legged epistemological system (four criteria in their Canon, mentioned in page 71) as opposed to our more familiar Tripod (three sets of faculties consisting of the five senses, the pleasure / pain faculty, and the prolepsis faculty).

The third criterion is the hardest to explain. One easy way to explain prolepsis is as a natural faculty for conceiving of abstractions (although my favorite explanation for it is the one found in García Gual’s book, which is only available in Spanish). Christos mentions “images from the subconscious”, and links prolepsis with Jungian archetypes. The point is that this is a natural, physical, and organic faculty, and not images from a Platonic or supernatural idealist realm. Some additional canonical remarks:

  • The fourth criterion of truth is mentioned as epibole tes dianoias (focusing of the mind) in Laertius’ Book Ten, which Christos associates with mental focus.
  • Christos discuses the method of multiple explanations (in page 76) as a process of hypotheses gathering.
  • He mentions modern contemplative studies (page 87) and compares them to Epicurus’ assertion that gods are perceived only by mind.

Jefferson

Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos wrote a chapter on the life of Thomas Jefferson, where he celebrates that Jefferson was the first in human history to write the right to happiness into a social contract when he wrote “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” into the Declaration of Independence (page 163 of the book).

I’d go further and say that Jefferson was practicing Kyriai Doxai when he wrote this. He was practicing the Epicurean doctrines on justice based on what is useful for mutual association, since he was steeped in Enlightenment values and wanted to create a society where, even if not everyone was Epicurean, at least those of us who were, would be able to thrive as Epicureans.

Conclusion

Some final notes:

  • Christos’ (in page 95) invites us to study these scientists: Lavoisier, Boyle, Dalton.
  • His chapter on the biography of Pierre Gassendi was fairly complete, engaging and enjoyable.
  • The book includes notes on some of the Epicurean ideas that contributed to the Islamic Enlightenment, of which I was not aware, although I had heard the name of Omar Khayam and the Mutazilites.
  • Babis Patzoglou (one of the contributors) shows signs of Hellenic nationalism, and gives a description of the Garden as a type of classless society (page 176). These ideas may not resonate with everyone.

The book has small editorial mistakes, which are in great part due to the fact that English is not the first language of the Kathegemones (Epicurean Guides) of the Gardens of Athens, Thessaloniki, and elsewhere in modern Greece. However, overall, I am stoked that this book was published in English. It’s a much needed intersection that allows for those of us who do not speak Greek to be able to harvest the wisdom of our Epicurean brethren in Hellas and to benefit from their expertise. 

Educational Content Update:

Epicurean Philosophy: An introduction from the “Garden of Athens”