Category Archives: epicurus

Pythagoras and the Swerve

In recent weeks, I held a private conversation (and there was a public conversation also in our forums) with an Epicurean who was turned off by what he perceived as the “dogmatism” of some of the more “orthodox” voices in our tradition (if there can be such a thing in a heterodoxic philosophy), things like their unwillingness to accept the theory of the Big Bang because it contradicted our doctrine about the universe having existed forever.  The important thing to accept as an Epicurean is that, whatever shape the Universe takes in terms of time and size, the proper explanation is always naturalist and never supernatural.  On this we must coincide to remain within the bounds of our tradition.

Two other perceived instances where Epicureans might be unorthodox deal with accepting some degree of determinism and with accepting some form of a mathematical (neo-Pythagorean) cosmology, including insights from the field of quantum physics.

While it is true that Pythagoras was as much a mystic as he was a mathematician and philosopher, we should at least concede that nature does exhibit mathematical “skills” in a manner of speaking.  Isaac Newton demonstrated that there are definite equations that apply to gravity and to mass; that nature’s laws can be translated into precise, discoverable mathematical equations.

Recent research on plants that time their consumption of starch in expectation of the next sunrise also shows that plants have an anticipation that is tied to the circadian rhythms of day and night.  Many reptiles are also attuned to the circadian rhythms, as this is vital for organisms that are cold-blooded and cannot regulate their body temperature at night, when it’s colder.  Many organisms (including humans) also tie their fertility seasons with the lunar cycles.  Corals, for instance, release their eggs at a very precise moment in the lunar calendar.

These types of adaptations require the bio-mechanical equivalent of a clock, and require mathematics.  Nature had to observe these cycles through the faculties of living entities, and then compute the ideal timing for the behaviors crucial to their survival.  Nature does math.

Pythagorean ideas related to musical harmony and math might also help to explain research on how chanting and sound meditation affects the brain.  Many religious traditions employ mantra technology, if I’m allowed that word, to produce blissful and serene states of meditative trance, but these practices have always been enveloped in mysticism.  Recent developments in the field of neuroplasticity prove that contemplative practices have a much stronger scientific base than they’ve ever been given credit for.  Chanting is not only soothing and pleasant (and should therefore should be a subject of research for those of us who wish to understand the science of hedonism), it also creates long-term changes in the brain and actually has medicinal and analgesic effects.

While we are grateful to the Pythagoreans and the mathematicians for their useful insights into the nature of things, ultimately when we deconstruct reality, there are atoms and void, not numbers. Reality is still, fundamentally, material. Atoms and elements and the things that they compose can be oftentimes discerned and studied mathematically, and that is as far as Pythagoreanism takes us. Math, like reason, only works when it has legitimate raw data discerned through the senses and empirical methods.

As for natural (as opposed to theological) theories of determinism, we must first contextualize Epicurus’ role as a moral reformer by understanding that he emerged from the early school of atomists that believed in a purely mechanical cosmos.  The atomists understood the universe as a machinery of eternal causation. Chance was impossible in this early scientific cosmology.

Nothing occurs at random, but everything for a reason and by necessity. – Leucippus, Democritus’ associate and and co-proponent of the original atomist doctrine

Hence, Epicurus saw the need for a theory of chaos, some kind of break in the chain of causality that would account for the evident volition and innovation that we see around us, particularly among living entities who have the power to change their environment and to make moral and creative choices.  This he called the swerve.  The important thing about the swerve is it attempts to explain how there are sometimes things that happen without a cause, without mechanically depending on the laws of nature.

This does not mean that some things aren’t determined by nature.  In a strict sense, Epicureans are really compatibilists.  Strict determinism renders the cosmos a tyrant that rules over automatons, while strict non-determinism renders and the laws of nature impossible to discern.  None of these two views really works when we study the nature of things.  It would be impossible to study nature’s laws if there didn’t exist predictable patterns: two members of one species will invariably mate to produce a third, never a member of another species.  Gravity will pull us.  Stars will engage in nuclear fusion.  These things are determined.

What we rebel against is the belief that our destinies are determined by the movements of the stars or the whims of spirits and gods; that Krishna established the caste system in the Bhagavad Gita; that Jehovah established the perpetual slavery of women in Genesis to punish Eve’s transgression; that Allah established shari’a laws by which society must be governed; that our lives are and must be ruled by unnecessary restrictions and ancient taboos that are beyond reproach.  These things are not determined by the laws of nature.  They are forms of cultural corruption.

The swerve is more than the random movement of an atom, or the random mutation of molecules within a gene that happens naturally in every generation, or the sudden decision by a primate to begin fashioning a new tool.  Epicurus saw a cultural determinism that claimed to be natural, an inertia, a program that benefited certain groups, a series of unchallenged false premises that the mobs were governed by and that he wanted to emancipate men from.  He saw these false views lucidly for the superstitions that they were.  He saw that these premises had no legitimate scientific foundation.  So he named this spark of freedom without which we would be robots.

His swerve is why we must own our creation as ethical agents rather than give credit to nature for everything that we do, for good or ill.  It’s how natural beings can be civilized, and–more importantly–free.

Epicurus battled another moral evil: false prophets who instill fear and awe in credulous people.  Insofar as the world is deterministic, prophecy is possible.  We can safely utter the prophecy that tomorrow the Sun will rise.  We can predict how many minutes there will be in the day and in the night in different parts of our globe.  There is research on the nature of things that gives us this information.  But we can not know the time and circumstances of our death or other future events with absolute certainty.  We can not know the future choices that our children will make, much less predict a cataclysm at the end of the world from the vantage point of a Bronze Age worldview, or via psychic abilities.  Only through telescopes can we detect potential meteors and such things, and only in modern times.

If Thales was able to predict a lunar eclipse, it’s because generations of Babylonian astronomers had studied the movements of the stars and, after careful and diligent observations, developed calendars and mathematical models of such movements.  With a proper understanding of the nature of things we learn that prophecy can only emerge from scientific insight, and that it’s not supernatural.

While there is research that seems to indicate that some people have a pre-natal impulse that leads to alcoholism or even to depression, to violence, or to becoming a serial killer, we must again return to our comment on how naturalist prophecy relies on empirical observation of the nature of things.  Furthermore, there are limits to the ability to prophesize about choices made by free agents.  We must consider improbable any theory that certain choices are inevitable in view of our current inability to travel back in time and attempt to orchestrate different outcomes in a given story-line.  We can fairly conclude that John Doe is likely to have an addictive or violent personality because of his genes (at least until we develop the gene therapy to treat it), but not that he will abuse his wife, or kill his neighbor, or specifically become a heroin addict.

Epicurus championed the use of knowledge to spiritually and ideologically liberate humanity from a state of primal fear, inertia, and ignorance.  The swerve can be understood as the philosophical equivalent of Prometheus’ theft of the Gods’ fire.  Like all living entities, humans have the power to change their environment, and the more we learn about the nature of things and the more science we acquire, the more radically we are free to transform our environment.

Epicureanism runs on friendship (philos). – Norman Dewitt

In the extant fragments left by our founders we see Epicurus and Polyaenus, who was himself a mathematician, arguing about whether there was heat in wine, proposing various theories, and exchanging differences of opinion.

Very few doctrines characterize Epicurean “orthodoxy”, if understood only on dogmatic terms. But our tradition is not mere doctrine: its most important consolations derive from solidarity and affiliation (philos). Our tradition is an ancient and ever-evolving series of conversations between friends that began with our founders, and that is nurtured by continued wholesome association. Seen in this light, the Epicurean who understands the spirit of true philosophy simply enjoys the pleasure of the discourse, and the mellows of friendship, unperturbed by our differences of opinion.

atom

Tweet This

Naturalist Reasoning on Friendship

And when they saw an offspring born
From out themselves, then first the human race
Began to soften. For ’twas now that fire
Rendered their shivering frames less staunch to bear,
Under the canopy of the sky, the cold;
And Love reduced their shaggy hardiness;
And children, with the prattle and the kiss,
Soon broke the parents’ haughty temper down.
Then, too, did neighbours ‘gin to league as friends,
Eager to wrong no more or suffer wrong,
And urged for children and the womankind
Mercy, of fathers, whilst with cries and gestures
They stammered hints how meet it was that all
Should have compassion on the weak. And still,
Though concord not in every wise could then
Begotten be, a good, a goodly part
Kept faith inviolate- or else mankind
Long since had been unutterably cut off,
And propagation never could have brought
The species down the ages.

Lucretius, in De Rerum Natura 5:1015-27

Lucretius’ account of how friendship emerged in the human race as a result of its softening and civilizing reminds me of comparative behavioral studies concerning the two species of chimpanzee. The better known species of chimpanzee is aggressive and its tribes and clans are governed by strong, feared alpha males who compete and fight over resources, over the right to mate, and over domination. The other species, the affable bonobos, like to make love instead of war. They solve all their conflicts through sexual exchanges, prefer to cooperate and share resources (again, always using sex as the social lubricant), and their societies are more egalitarian. It has been noted that the bonobos evolved in parts of the African forests where there were plenty of resources to share, whereas the evolution of the traditional chimp saw more scarcity, ergo their more violent nature.

Some of the most violent species of baboons, by way of contrast, experience so much stress during their short lifetimes that they’re in constant state of alert and their health suffers greatly as a result. Humans in overpopulated cities, and those in areas with high levels of poverty, tend also to exhibit higher rates of violent crime whereas wealthier societies exhibit lower rates of violence.

Because examples of both war and cooperation exist among our closest relatives, it’s difficult to discern whether our instances of war and cooperation are the result of nurture or nature. But it can not be denied that similar behavioral patters are found among humans and chimpanzees. We also have our authoritarian alpha males with their docile clans, and elsewhere our open and egalitarian bonobo-like societies.

It should perhaps be asked whether the fact that Abrahamic religions emerged from the desert (no doubt one of the most inhospitable and unfruitful places on Earth) may help to explain the authoritarian and patriarchal alpha-male tendencies in Abrahamic religions. But then, what are we to make of our philosophy of the Garden, a place of fruitfulness and greenery, particularly in contrast with spiritualities of the desert? It’s interesting to note that our Garden tradition emerged in glorification of the pleasures of friendship, the most egalitarian model of human interaction and that its most outstanding cultural expression, the gathering on the 20th, is an exuberant display of plenty, of abundance.

In light of this, we can understand why a Garden philosophy must be a philosophy of autarchy (self-sufficiency), and how self-sufficiency produces friendly humans just as plenty in the African bush produces affectionate bonobos. Without autarchy, we must either depend on others (and build hierarchies based on production and exploitation) or steal from them (engage in pillaging, plunder and violence). With self-sufficiency, we are free from the anxieties that arise when we can’t provide our natural needs and we can easily relate to others affectionately and as trusting equals.

Lucretius said it well: Philos reduced our shaggy hardiness and neighbors began to league as friends eager to wrong no more or be wronged.

The above article first appeared in the May 2014 issue of Happy 20th!

Back to the Main Page

Tweet This

SoFE Journal Volume 1 – 2013


ARTICLES

Robert Hanrott
This is why I am an Epicurean (pp. 1-3)
February 27, 2013

» Full Text (HTML)» Full Text (PDF)

Robert Hanrott
Questions and Answers (pp. 4-7)
February 27, 2013

» Full Text (HTML)   » Full Text (PDF)

Hiram Crespo
Epicureanism and the Live Foods Lifestyle (pp. 8-11)
March 23, 2013

» Full Text (HTML)   » Full Text (PDF)

Hiram Crespo
Towards an Epicurean Atheology(pp. 12-14)
April 14, 2013

» Full Text (HTML)   » Full Text (PDF)

Dara Fogel
An Epicurean Manifesto (pp. 15-24)
April 21, 2013

» Full Text (HTML)   » Full Text (PDF)

REFLECTIONS

Hiram Crespo
The Doctrine of Innumerable Worlds (pp. 25-26)
February 24, 2013

» Full Text (HTML)   » Full Text (PDF)

Hiram Crespo
The Epicurean Revival (pp. 27-28)
March 1, 2013

» Full Text (HTML)   » Full Text (PDF)

Hiram Crespo
Against Fatalism and False Consolations (pp. 29-30)
March 5, 2013

» Full Text (HTML)   » Full Text (PDF)

Society of Friends of Epicurus Journal

SoFE Journal Volume 2 – 2013


ARTICLES

Hiram Crespo
That Old Time Secularism (pp. 1-5)
May 18, 2013

» Full Text (HTML) » Full Text (PDF)

Christos Yapijakis
Self-sufficiency as a Product of Prudence (pp. 6-8)
July 24, 2013

» Full Text (HTML) » Full Text (PDF)

Dimitris Dimitriadis
Aitio Paronta: Epicurus’ Humanism and Enlightened Speech (pp. 9-13)
September 16, 2013

» Full Text (HTML) » Full Text (PDF)

Hiram Crespo
On the Architecture of Pleasure (pp. 14-16)
September 23, 2013

» Full Text (HTML) » Full Text (PDF)

Society of Friends of Epicurus Journal

SoFE Journal Volume 3 – 2013/14


ARTICLES

Hiram Crespo
Venus as Spiritual Guide:
The Value and Use of Mythography in Wisdom Traditions
(pp. 1-4)
September 17, 2013

» Full Text (HTML)   » Full Text (PDF)

Hiram Crespo
The Heresy of Immaterialism (pp. 5-7)
October 13, 2013

» Full Text (HTML)   » Full Text (PDF)

Hiram Crespo
On Why Materialism Matters (pp. 8-10)
December 24, 2013

» Full Text (HTML)   » Full Text (PDF)

Hiram Crespo
Reasonings about Philodemus’ On Frank Criticism, Part I:
The Role of Frankness in a Philosophy of Freedom and Friendship (pp. 11-14)
February 25, 2014

» Full Text (HTML)   » Full Text (PDF)

Hiram Crespo
Reasonings about Philodemus’ On Frank Criticism, Part II:
The Masters as Moral Models (pp. 15-16)
February 28, 2014

» Full Text (HTML)   » Full Text (PDF)

Hiram Crespo
Reasonings about Philodemus’ On Frank Criticism, Part III:
Against the Charlatans (pp. 17-20)
March 3, 2014

» Full Text (HTML)   » Full Text (PDF)

Hiram Crespo
The Perils of Alienation (pp. 21-24)
March 28, 2014

» Full Text (HTML)   » Full Text (PDF)

Prof. John J Thrasher
Reconciling Justice and Pleasure in Epicurean Contractarianism
» Full Text (PDF)

REFLECTIONS

Hiram Crespo
Jeffersonian Epicureanism (pp. 25-26)
February 17, 2014

» Full Text (HTML)   » Full Text (PDF)

Fred Edwords
The Rubáiyát of Titus Lucretius Carus

» Full Text (HTML)

REVIEWS & REPORTS

Peter Saint-Andre
The Summary of the Diseases of the Soul (pp. 27-28)
June 1, 2013

» Full Text (HTML)

Writings by Cassius Amicus (p. 29)
May 23, 2013

» Full Text (HTML)

Andreas Haf
An Epicurean Yearbook – in German
October 27, 2014

» Full Text (HTML)

Cassius Amicus
Hiram Crespo’s Tending the Garden
July 29, 2014

» Full Text (HTML)

Society of Friends of Epicurus Journal

SOFE Journal Volume 4 – from 2013 (ongoing)

ARTICLES

Martha Horsley
Carvaka and Epicurus (pp. 1-3)
April 21, 2013

» Full Text (HTML)   » Full Text (PDF)

Martin Masse
The Epicurean Roots of Some Classical Liberal and Misesian Concepts (pp. 4-7)
April 22, 2013

» Full Text (HTML)   » Full Text (PDF)

Hiram Crespo
Learning from Stern Old Father Time (pp. 8-10)
June 9, 2013

» Full Text (HTML)   » Full Text (PDF)

REFLECTIONS

Hiram Crespo
Critique of Ayn Rand and Moral Objectivism (pp.  )
February 24, 2013

» Full Text (HTML)

Hiram Crespo
Discourse on Loving Kindness (pp.  )
June 1, 2013

» Full Text (HTML)

Hiram Crespo
Reasonings on the Hedonic Pig and Cultural Hypocrisy (pp.  )
June 1, 2013

» Full Text (HTML)

Society of Friends of Epicurus Journal

SoFE Journal Volume 5: On Autarchy – from 2013 (ongoing)


ARTICLES

Hiram Crespo
On Philodemus’ Art of Property Management (pp. 1-8)
January 26, 2014

» Full Text (HTML)   » Full Text (PDF)

REFLECTIONS

Hiram Crespo
On Autarchy 
December 1, 2013

» Full Text (HTML)

Robert Hanrott
On Short-term Contracts 
December 1, 2013

» Full Text (HTML)

Robert Hanrott
How we might Live
December 1, 2013

» Full Text (HTML)

Society of Friends of Epicurus Journal

SoFE Journal Volume 6 – from 2014 (ongoing)


ARTICLES

Hiram Crespo
The New Canon (pp. 1-3)
January 1, 2014

» Full Text (HTML)   » Full Text (PDF)

Hiram Crespo
The Celebration of the 20th (pp. 4-6)
January 12, 2014

» Full Text (HTML)   » Full Text (PDF)

REFLECTIONS

Robert Hanrott
Is Epicureanism a Selfish Philosophy? (pp.   )
May 1, 2014

» Full Text (HTML)

REVIEWS & REPORTS

The Friends of Epicurean Philosophy “Garden” of Greece
Declaration of the Right of Happiness in the European Union (pp.  )
February 23, 2014

» Full Text (HTML)

Message of Solidarity from SoFE to the Participants of the 2014 Symposium (pp.  )
February 23, 2014

» Full Text (HTML)

The Friends of Epicurean Philosophy “Garden” of Greece
4th Pan-Hellenic Symposium of Epicurean Philosophy – Report (pp.  )
February 23, 2014

» Full Text (HTML)

Hiram Crespo
Epicurus the Sage Review
April 20, 2014

» Full Text (HTML)

Rick Heller
Tend Your Garden (Book Review for SecularBuddhism.org)
April 20, 2014

» Full Text (HTML)

Society of Friends of Epicurus Journal

SoFE Journal Volume 7 – 2014


ARTICLES

Hiram Crespo
The Hedonic Covenant and Humanity’s True Emancipation (pp. 1-5)
April 13, 2014

» Full Text (HTML)   » Full Text (PDF)

Sasha S. Euler
Epicurean Philosophy of Pleasure in Saint Thomas More’s Utopia, Part I
Utopia as the ‘Morean Synthesis’
(pp. 6-9)    
April 15, 2014

» Full Text (HTML)   » Full Text (PDF)

Sasha S. Euler
Epicurean Philosophy of Pleasure in Saint Thomas More’s Utopia, Part II
Epicureanism in Utopia
(pp. 10-19)    
April 15, 2014

» Full Text (HTML)   » Full Text (PDF)

Hiram Crespo
Pythagoras and the Swerve  (pp. 20-22)
May 17, 2014

» Full Text (HTML)   » Full Text (PDF)

Hiram Crespo
On the Natural Measure of Pride (pp. 23-27)
June 1, 2014

» Full Text (HTML)   » Full Text (PDF)

Hiram Crespo
Reasonings on the Other Races of Men (pp. 28-30)
July 26, 2014

» Full Text (HTML)   » Full Text (PDF)

REFLECTIONS

Hiram Crespo
Naturalist Reasoning on Friendship (pp.  31-32)
May 15, 2014

» Full Text (HTML)   » Full Text (PDF)

REVIEWS

Hiram Crespo
In Praise of Lucian (pp. 33-34)
April 17, 2014

» Full Text (HTML)

Hiram Crespo
Review of the Good Book: A Humanist Bible (pp. 35-36)
June 3, 2014

» Full Text (HTML)

Hiram Crespo
Tending the Epicurean Garden: the Foundational Text for the Work of Society of Epicurus (p. 37)
June 11, 2014

» Full Text (HTML)

Society of Friends of Epicurus Journal

Is Epicureanism a selfish philosophy?

The following piece, contributed by Robert Hanrott (and reflective of his own altruistic views), deals with a frequent accusation against Epicureans by ill-informed critics.  Pleasure is neither selfish nor selfless: that is a false point of reference.  It can be the lubricant that binds lovers, friends, or a mother and child.  It can also be private and subjective. 

The idea of Epicureanism being selfish is an idea put about by the early Christian church. At the time Epicureanism had more followers than any other philosophy or religion. It was part of the Christian strategy to trash Epicurus and all he stood for. Thus, he was pictured as a self-indulgent glutton, whose only interest was having orgies and a riotous life. The Christians won the PR battle because they tailored their message to suit the purposes of the Emperor, and their political triumph meant that a huge proportion of the writings of Epicurus himself were destroyed, leaving us with fragments.

During his lifetime there was great violence in the Greek world following the death of Alexander and the fight over his legacy. Epicurus reacted by retreating into his Garden, refusing to get involved in the politics, which were unpleasant and downright dangerous. He was therefore branded selfish and unsocial and an enemy of the polis and the community . Latterly, the followers of Ayn Rand latched onto this interpretation of Epicurus, and today Libertarians invoke Epicurus as a model. Libertarians believe only in their individual interests, reject government, won’t pay taxes or give to charity, and want to freeload on everyone else. Unfortunately, they are numerous and vocal.

Libertarians (like many others) completely misinterpret Epicurus. Look at what Epicurus actually said:

1. Happiness and enjoyment of life is the greatest good. We only have one life and we shouldn’t waste it. This does not mean riotous living – on the contrary, Epicurus and his followers ate and drank very moderately. What it does mean is that you pick the activities you like and enjoy and avoid unpleasant people and stupid, aggressive confrontations and arguments. You are polite, respectful and considerate of others, because, if you are, you encourage others to treat you in the same way. You are generous because you are naturally so, but also because you get psychic pleasure from doing so. As Jesus said, very correctly, “it is more blessed to give than to receive”.

2. Friendship is vital to a happy life. You cannot make and keep friends if you are selfish and focused only on yourself!

3. Inclusiveness is Epicurean. Epicurus was the first recorded person, or philosopher, to welcome into his Garden both women and slaves (unheard of before). These were women and slaves who presumably were fun to be with and had the intellect to discuss matters of life and being. Epicurus believed in equality of effort – that is, in a relationship the partners should shoulder equal responsibilities (this message still hasn’t gotten through to a lot of men). He believed such things because they cause pleasure and a happier life

4. Epicurus subscribed to the idea put forward by Democritus that we are all made of atoms, and that these atoms collide to form mass. This was his explanation of the universe, and it turned out that actually he was basically right! But because he was an atomist doesn’t mean that he regarded all human beings as bunches of separate atoms selfishly looking after their own interests. The issue of atoms has nothing to do with his outlook on moderate living, friendship, kindness, empathy and generosity – these are what he stood for philosophically.

5. With regard to giving back: how can anyone with a conscience and a modicum of the human kindness not be moved by the dire poverty of India or the tragic happenings in Syria? How can you have a happy life unless you GIVE. This doesn’t just mean donate to the local food bank.

6. One way of explaining Epicureanism is encapsulated in the phrase “getting along together”. This implies compromise and give-and-take, together with an open mind and–importantly–a sense of humor. A funny comment turneth away wrath. Unfortunately, there a subset of people who will not compromise and have absolutely no sense of humor.

7. Friendship means giving, as I said above. There are many ways to give, from setting a good example of consideration, kindness and empathy to devoting yourself to the poor. You can be an entrepreneur and still be a good and generous human being. I have run my own company and had to do some things I regret, but I hope on balance that I gave more than I took. Social entrepreneurship is an excellent idea, very Epicurean (it makes one happy!) and not really new.

There are many cases of it going back to the 19th Century. One example is Rowntree in England. Rowntree was a chocolate manufacturer who gave his workers excellent wages, very nice housing that is still there, healthcare and pensions. He was very successful. But I digress!

There is an inconsistency between what Epicurus said and my own Epicureanism. I part company with Epicurus over non-involvement in politics and the community. His attitude was understandable given the conditions at the time. But we live in a totally different world, where at least we do not have warfare on our own doorstep in the United States. If we give up on politics and hide away in a Garden, our freedom and our future is doomed, because the really selfish and ambitious people out there (and you know who I mean) will destroy what liberty we have, to the detriment of the poor and the shrinking middle class.

Epicureanism is a gentle, kindly philosophy; Christianity without the virgin births, saints, the outdated ideas on marriage and procreation, or a hierarchy of people who tell us what and what not to believe. It is a set of humanist beliefs that places friendship, happiness and peace of mind before all else. And you cannot have peace of mind, for instance, with mentally disabled people begging on the street, while some banker gets ten million a year. Yes, we have an obligation to give back.

Robert Hanrott

You may read Robert’s Epicurean blog here

Back to the Main Page

Tweet This