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
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
REVIEWS & REPORTS
Peter Saint-Andre
The Summary of the Diseases of the Soul (pp. 27-28)
June 1, 2013
Writings by Cassius Amicus (p. 29)
May 23, 2013
Andreas Haf
An Epicurean Yearbook – in German
October 27, 2014
Cassius Amicus
Hiram Crespo’s Tending the Garden
July 29, 2014
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
Hiram Crespo
Discourse on Loving Kindness (pp. )
June 1, 2013
Hiram Crespo
Reasonings on the Hedonic Pig and Cultural Hypocrisy (pp. )
June 1, 2013
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
Robert Hanrott
On Short-term Contracts
December 1, 2013
Robert Hanrott
How we might Live
December 1, 2013
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
REVIEWS & REPORTS
The Friends of Epicurean Philosophy “Garden” of Greece
Declaration of the Right of Happiness in the European Union (pp. )
February 23, 2014
Message of Solidarity from SoFE to the Participants of the 2014 Symposium (pp. )
February 23, 2014
The Friends of Epicurean Philosophy “Garden” of Greece
4th Pan-Hellenic Symposium of Epicurean Philosophy – Report (pp. )
February 23, 2014
Hiram Crespo
Epicurus the Sage Review
April 20, 2014
Rick Heller
Tend Your Garden (Book Review for SecularBuddhism.org)
April 20, 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
Hiram Crespo
Review of the Good Book: A Humanist Bible (pp. 35-36)
June 3, 2014
Hiram Crespo
Tending the Epicurean Garden: the Foundational Text for the Work of Society of Epicurus (p. 37)
June 11, 2014
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
When you want to smile then visit me: sleek, and fat I’m a hog, well cared-for, one of Epicurus’ herd.
– Horace, Epistles I.4.16
The Abrahamic religious traditions have generally been hostile to Epicurus. Apikoros was, in fact, a generic Jewish term for goy or gentile, comparable to the Islamic kafir, which translates as infidel.
The differences between the religions of the desert and the philosophy of the Garden are so deep and so many that they can not be reconciled. This irreconcilability is symbolized by the strict ban on ham in both Islam (where pig meat is considered haram, or unlawful) and Judaism (where it’s trefah, or not kosher). The dangerous pig, being considered the dirtiest animal, carries so many taboos against it that it can not be eaten or touched, and even pig characters in cartoons must be demeaned and never presented in a friendly manner.
Now, I’m not saying that the pig isn’t dirty, that it doesn’t carry parasites and doesn’t require special care when cooking … but so do beef and chicken. Furthermore, for a creature so vilified in one culture, the pig does seem innocent to us and to the millions who either raise it, love it as a pet or eat its flesh with frequency. Pigs are valued so highly that they’re considered a currency in many cultures (particularly in Papua and the rest of Oceania), and the PETA webpage argues that their intelligence is comparable to that of dogs and cats.
There are several hypocrisies related to cultural corruption and perceptions that have gone unanalyzed for very long surrounding the pig. The first one is that, while its much larger cousin the elephant loves to bathe in mud (a practice which is good for the skin and even humans give themselves mud facials) and no one considers the elephant to be particularly dirtier than other beasts, there’s nothing more abhorrent and nasty to some people than a muddy pig. It’s almost the epitome of filth.
And then we reach the Epicurean layer of meaning attached to the pig, and we see that, like Epicureans, the pig is an endearing and jolly natural being that’s happy to eat the simplest foods. Decorations of pigs were found in the ruins of the city of Herculaneum, where Philodemus taught philosophy. When we read Horace’s poem it becomes clear that he’s using the term pig as a synonym for a happy, free, natural being who loves life. The person to whom he writes is invited to think of Horace as a well-cared-for Epicurean pig whenever he wants to cheer up, to laugh.
The Muslim world fasts during the month of Ramadan. There are some positive aspects to this practice. It’s believed that periodic fasting is good for the body, that it’s good to give the stomach a break from time to time, and that when the body does not have to spend vast amounts of energy in the process of digestion, it can then turn its energy to the process of detoxing, of removing germs and other debris that may cause cancer and other diseases – which explains why people have a natural tendency to lose their appetite when they’re sick. Many in the live foods movement fast from time to time.
Putting aside legitimate questions about the Muslim practice of fasting, about how much fasting is healthy and at what point can it become unhealthy and dangerous (at least for some people), the ethical question lies in the imposition of what we see as unnatural and unnecessary restrictions by the culture, dietary or otherwise. Eating during sunlight hours is forbidden in Muslim countries during Ramadan and anyone seen doing it is thought of as having broken an important part of the social contract, a contract that most Muslims did not willingly sign. Most Muslims are so by birth, not choice. Fasting during Ramadan is not optional in Islam.
How can anyone know the sincerity of someone’s faith when practicing it is not optional? This type of obligatory behavior in religious societies breeds a culture of hypocrisy and of punitive attitudes that replaces authentic piety with blind obedience.
But the point where cultural attitudes reach the apex of hypocrisy has to be sex. Islam proposes that men may have as many wives as they can afford and, in countries where Islam is the base for the law, polygamy is often still practiced as in the times of Muhammad, who had a lively harem of wives and concubines. One of his wives was “taken” from a conquered Jewish tribe after all the men were slaughtered (the women were forced into sex with men who had killed their husbands and fathers); another one of Muhammad’s wife had been married to his adoptive son, who graciously gave her up after noticing the prophet’s lascivious stears.
Let’s switch the tables, for the sake of an intellectual exercise. One wonders how society, in particular religious society, would react to an Epicurean community that lives a lifestyle comparable to that of Muhammad or the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith, who had over 30 wives, two of whom were 14, and some of whom were already married to his followers prior to his taking them as wives. Abraham, the great patriarch of the Biblical tradition, had at least two wives, and in Genesis 30, Jacob has sex with four women: two sister-wives and two slaves-concubines.
What would pious Christians or Muslims say of an Epicurean philosopher living in a harem with 30 wives? What if some of those wives had been “taken” from others through warfare and murder?
One of Muhammad’s wives, Aisha, was six when married, nine when she had sex with him. He was 60. What would the pious Christian or Muslim say if Epicurus had kept a child as a wife in this manner?
To illustrate the double standard, what would they say if he lived with 30 young men, instead of a harem of women like Muhammad and Joseph Smith did?
We’ll never know if it would have bothered the Jew, Christian, Muslim or Mormon if their prophets had admitted they chose multiple sexual partners because they sought pleasure, because such things were never admitted publicly. No: GOD told them to do it. And so, it’s beyond reproach and the question of pleasure is not an issue, and that’s that.
How is it that virtuous Epicureans–who have never been known for having harems or treating women like property–merely by admitting that they considered pleasure valuable, scandalized communities that emerged from such scandalous beginnings? Should this audacity be allowed to persist unquestioned?
What we have before us is Euthyphro’s dilemma, which says: Is something right or wrong because God says it is, or does God love something because it’s inherently good and hate it because it’s inherently bad? When Plato penned the dilemma, it didn’t occur to him that it might be irrelevant and based on false premises.
Naturalist philosophy, by doing away with the belief that God is pleased or displeased at moral or immoral acts, places ethics on a plane that avoids false opinion of the kind that legitimizes random iniquities like sexual abuse of minors, the treatment of women as cattle, homophobic double-standards, and the vilification of a creature as innocent as the pig.
It’s curious that our society, as hostile as it is to traditions of polyamory, claims to have roots in the Abrahamic traditions, all of which were cradled in polyamory lifestyles that modeled quite questionable family values. Abraham, for instance, cast his second wife Hagar and his first son Ismael into the desert under the whispers of Sara, his first wife … and we’ve all heard of how much suffering was caused to Isaac’s son Joseph by his half-brothers’ jealousy. He was sold into slavery. Are the roots of Western civilization really Abrahamic? And if we concede that they aren’t, would it really be desirable that they were?
The next time you eat bacon or ham with your friends, remember these reasonings. Of all the foods available to humans, the flesh of the pig carries with it a set of religious taboos and controversies, along with philosophical questions and traditions that underline and make obvious the sharp distinction between true ethics and questionable, superstitious morals.
The animated two-volume series Epicurus the Sage was created by writer Bill Messner-Loebs and artist Sam Keith, and published in 1989 by Piranha Press.
First, we must clarify that the series is fictional and characters from different centuries, as well as gods, are brought together in the same time and space. Nonetheless, it constitutes a great introduction to philosophy for children (and adults) from a satirical, Epicurean perspective … except for the now-and-then rhetorical question being asked by a character: “anyone else smell sheepshit?”
Still, the sheepshit reference should be treated almost as a koan: raising children with critical thinking skills requires this kind of ability to openly question the givens in common conversation.
The creators of the series demonstrate a general familiarity with Epicurus’ perspectives and, although perhaps not intended as didactic material, the series does have some didactic value. Through the use of mockery, it depicts the impracticality of Socratic reliance only on logic, the superstitious and fantastic worldview of Plato, the word-plays of the sophists, and how the gods behave in a manner that is all-too-human, even childish.
This last point is not articulated through the lips of the Epicurus character, but via the plot itself. Through these dramatized critiques of other philosophies and beliefs, the Epicurean perspective on them and on the gods is eloquently articulated.
We also see Epicurus’ frequent, comical efforts to disassociate from Democritus, although he obviously had a debt of gratitude to his atomist teachings.
The series is available from amazon or ebay.
I was … concerned … to strike a blow for Epicurus, that great man whose holiness and divinity of nature were not shams, who alone had and imparted true insight into the good, and who brought deliverance to all that consorted with him. – Lucian
I had read Cassius’ mention of ‘striking a blow for Epicurus’ before but was unfamiliar with the source of this quote, as I had avoided the reading of Alexander the Oracle-Monger for fear that it would be too long and take too much time from my busy life, but it was a much more pleasant read than I expected. I underestimated his narrative abilities, his ability to make laugh and his sincere faith in Epicurus.
Lucian was a Greek-speaking Assyrian of the 2nd Century of Common Era. He tells the story of a false prophet of Apollo who was known as Alexander, in part as an act of vengeance, and in part in honor of Epicurus and the Epicureans whom Alexander hated for their frequent accusations of fraud. The entire work was written as an act of Epicurean solidarity. It depicts the false prophet wearing snakes on his body and foaming in the mouth to impress people, a device which Lucian easily explains by saying he chewed saponin-rich herbs. It even contains the first historical reference to the notion of bull-shit, when the antics of the prophet are literally compared to “the manure of thousands of oxen”.
The hostility was, naturally, mutual. Epicureans never had tolerance for his ilk. When I wrote the piece Against the Charlatans, expanding on a fragment written by Philodemus, I confess I felt a bit uncomfortable with having to point the finger at frauds. Common (docile) society considers these accusations to be mean and insolent. I had no idea that my exposé of religious fraud had such noble and enjoyable precedent.
I must also express gratitude to Erik Anderson (RIP) of the epicurus.info webpage for making this work available online for everyone to read.
If we’re going to share the planet with false prophets, let’s name them as such in the intellectual company of sober thinkers like Lucian. The work is peppered with praise for Epicurus, his literature, his intellect, and his virtue. Below are some quotes from Alexander the Oracle-Monger. May they serve as an invitation to read the entire narrative.
… human life is under the absolute dominion of two mighty principles, fear and hope, and … any one who can make these serve his ends may be sure of rapid fortune.
… Well, it was war to the knife between him and Epicurus, and no wonder. What fitter enemy for a charlatan who patronized miracles and hated truth, than the thinker who had grasped the nature of things and was in solitary possession of that truth? As for the Platonists, Stoics, Pythagoreans, they were his good friends; he had no quarrel with them. But the unmitigated Epicurus, as he used to call him, could not but be hateful to him, treating all such pretensions as absurd and puerile.
… Alexander once made himself supremely ridiculous. Coming across Epicurus’s Principal Doctrines, the most admirable of his books, as you know, with its terse presentment of his wise conclusions, he brought it into the middle of the marketplace, there burned it on a figwood fire for the sins of its author, and cast its ashes into the sea. He issued an oracle on the occasion: “The dotard’s doctrines to the flames be given.” The fellow had no conception of the blessings conferred by that book upon its readers, of the peace, tranquillity, and independence of mind it produces, of the protection it gives against terrors, phantoms, and marvels, vain hopes and insubordinate desires, of the judgment and candor that it fosters, or of its true purging of the spirit, not with torches and squills and such rubbish, but with right reason, truth, and frankness.
– Lucian
Further Reading:
Lucian: Selected Dialogues (Oxford World’s Classics)
Swinish Herds and Pastafarians: Comedy as an Ideological Weapon
