Category Archives: epicurus

Happy Twentieth: The Twenty-Two Excellent Books on Empedocles

Eikas cheers to all! This month’s Eikas program was on Guidance of the Soul in Epicureanism. Nathan Oglesby published a video titled Epicurean Ecology in his YouTube channel Nathanology, and also published the essay The Epicurean guide to digital life, Big Think published Epicurus and the atheist’s guide to happiness, and Natalie Haynes facilitated Standing up for Lucretius. Speaking of Lucretius, the YouTube channel Eclectic Humanist has videos titled:

An Intro to Lucretius
Book I: the Material Cosmos, Book II: Fun With Atoms
Book III: Death the Soul, and Other Good Things
Book IV: How We Know Things
Book V: From Primeval Ooze to Poetry
Book VI: Concluding with a Plague

I’ve enjoyed following this YouTuber and strongly recommend his channel for its in-depth exploration and appreciation of Lucretius.

Tiny Epics published Aphrodite the Light Bringer, which mentions Lucretius at the closing of the video, reminding us that De rerum natura is in actuality a work of polytheistic piety. Lucretius offered and consecrated the poem as a libation at the feet of Venus when he, at the opening of the poem in Liber Primvs, invoked Venus for inspiration, declaring that it is Venus alone who rules all of nature (“sola gubernas“, verse 21) and who can assist peace (“tu sola potes tranquilla pace iuvare“, verse 31), and asking her to give an immortal charm to the poem.

Hermarchus, on Empedocles

Diogenes Laertius [tmíma/portion 25 in the Laertian numbering system] reports that Hermarchus of Mitilene, the second Scholarch of the Epicurean Garden and successor of the Hegemon, wrote 22 books on Empedocles which he described as “excellent”:

Next came Epicurus’s successor Hermarchus, son of Agemortus, a citizen of Mitylene, the son of a poor man and at the outset a student of rhetoric. There are in circulation the following excellent works by him: Correspondence concerning Empedocles, in 22 books …

This is an encyclopedic amount of literary output, and indicates that Hermarchus considered Empedocles to be a thought-provoking philosopher, and that Empedocles must have had a seminal influence on Epicurean philosophy and on many later generations of Epicureans. Philodemus later avidly encouraged his disciples to study a collection of all the writings of the founders titled “Pragmateia“, which must have included these 22 books.

Who Was Empedocles

Like Epicurus, Empedocles combined many of the ideas he inherited into his own system of thought, creating a new nexus in the evolution of the ideas that were circulating in his culture. 

He was a bit eccentric, and mixed mysticism with proto-scientific curiosity. He wrote two poems: “Purifications” (which contained his religious and ethical thought) and “On Nature”. He was heavily influenced by the Orphic mysteries, which taught liberation from the wheel of reincarnation (through initiation and purifications), and was seen as a type of medicine man. He was also reported to have been a disciple of Pythagoras, which makes sense in light of his belief in reincarnation.

He was against authoritarianism (abolished a council of life-long magistrates, instituted term limits, and included people of all social classes in the new council), helped the poor, and also (like the first prophet Zoroaster, who may have been an influence) defended vegetarianism and fought against cruelty to innocent animals. 

He had been revered as a living god while alive, and upon his death legends emerged about his manner of death. In Icaro-Menippus, a comedic dialogue written by the second century satirist Lucian of Samosata, Empedocles’ final fate is re-evaluated. Rather than being incinerated in the fires of Mount Etna, he was carried up into the heavens by a volcanic eruption. Although a bit singed by the ordeal, Empedocles survives and continues his life on the Moon, surviving by feeding on dew.

Why 22 Books?

We will never know with full certainty why Empedocles deserved 22 books by Hermarchus, or why the biographer chose to describe them as “excellent”. In this essay, I will speculate about what these books may have contained by comparing what we know about Empedocles with what Epicurus, Philodemus, and Lucretius later wrote. 

Arguments Against Reincarnation

Lucretius’ arguments against reincarnation may have been derived from, or inspired in, Hermarchus’ reactions to Empedocles in his 22 works. In his third book, he argues that we have no memory of previous lives, questions how a soul could slip into a body, and rejects and even ridicules the idea of souls waiting to incarnate (Liber Tertivs 670-782).

Against the Rhetors

Laertius reports:

Aristotle, in his Sophist, says that Empedocles was the first person who invented rhetoric.

This may have been an additional bone of contention for Hermarchus, evidence for which we would later find in Philodemus’ Rhetorica. There, Philodemus argues that rhetoric does not give true expertise in any field of knowledge other than rhetoric, and that experts in each field are best equipped to teach it. He also argues at length against the unethical practices of rhetors.

Theory of Vision by Emission

Empedocles believed that the eyes emit rays that allow for vision (sort of like how Cyclops from Xmen emits laser rays from his eyes), rather than light particles entering the eye from outside. The portion of Liber Qvartvs in De rerum natura that discusses the five senses may have drawn–in part–from Hermarchus’ refutation of this theory.

The Evolution of the Theory of Natural Selection

Empedocles had a primitive version of evolution by natural selection, but he believed in an “island of Doctor Moreau” version of it, where humans with heads of oxen and other hybrid creatures emerged, but did not survive because their shape was not conducive to survival. Ergo, we imagine that Hermarchus may have had an issue with this, and Lucretius’ insistence (in Liber Qvintvs 878-924) that each species produces offspring according to its kind may be a later attestation of this.

But Centaurs ne’er have been, nor can there be
Creatures of twofold stock and double frame,
Compact of members alien in kind …

… Wherefore, the man who feigns
Such beings could have been engendered
When earth was new and the young sky was fresh
(Basing his empty argument on new)
May babble with like reason many whims
Into our ears …

… each sole thing
Proceeds according to its proper wont
And all conserve their own distinctions based
In nature’s fixed decree.

While Lucretius is not quite Darwinian yet, his account is an improvement on the ideas that preceded him, and he may have been drawing from refutations in  Hermarchus’ 22 books on Empedocles.

The Four Elements

Empedocles had a theory of the four elements (which he called “roots”). He associated them with four deities–a fact which may have inspired Paul’s disparaging mention of the elements in his New Testament epistles.

Empedocles’ four elements idea was clearly a precursor to the atoms and void theory of Democritus and the atomists, who at once reacted against and built upon his ideas. This was probably an important part of Hermarchus’ arguments in his 22 books.

If four things make up the whole and in those four all things break up again, how can the four be called the stuff of things rather than the reverse: the things, of them? For one begets the other; They trade off colors and whole identities, every passing hour. – Lucretius, in DRN, Liber Primvs, 762-769

One of the key features of the primitive atomic theory was that primal atoms do not have complex properties, and that properties like color and such emerge only after they combine into more complex bodies.

The arguments by the atomists against the four elements, and in favor of the atoms and void theory, may have involved the case study of water. We know (from Lucretius’ detailed and accurate description of the rain and condensation cycles) that early Epicureans had carefully observed how water becomes vapor / gas when exposed to heat, and becomes ice when cold, and we see clearly that the solid, gaseous, and liquid states may exist within the same element at different temperatures. Therefore, it is inaccurate to say that these four “elements” of water, rock, air, and fire are the primal eternal particles, since we observe that particles change from one to the other elements.

Linked to these refutations is the argument along the lines that “nothing can come from nothing”. 

Something ever unchanging must survive, lest all the world be broken down to nothing. For whatever changes and leaves its natural bounds is instant death of that which was before. Now therefore, since those elements I just mentioned do go through changes, they must be composed of others which can nowhere suffer change, else all the world will be reduced to nothing. – Lucretius, in DRN, Liber Primvs, 790-797

Love and Strife

Empedocles taught that love and strife (attraction and repulsion) were two basic forces of nature similar to the Yin and Yang of Taoism. These forces were at once physical, ethical and cosmological. 

Speaking poetically, he associated Love with Aphrodite, which begs the question: might this add a layer of meaning to the initial portion of Lucretius’ poem, which shows Venus overcoming Mars? Might this be a way to say that love overcomes strife, that attraction overcomes repulsion? Lucretius’ choice to address Venus may have been, in part, inspired in Empedocles’s belief that Aphrodite represents “the great creative force in the cosmos”.

It should not surprise us that Empedocles–like other contemporary and preceding Greek philosophers–is believed to have studied with the magoi (Zoroastrian priests). This theory of love and strife / attraction and repulsion in nature and in ethics is quite reminiscent of Asho Zartosht’s explanation in his Gathas of the two primal mentalities that exist in the cosmos: the Constructive Mentality (Spenta Mainyu) and the Destructive Mentality (Angra Mainyu).

The two foremost mentalities, known to be imaginary twins, are the better and the bad in thoughts, words, and deeds. Of these the beneficent choose correctly, but not so the maleficent. When the two mentalities first got together, they created “life” and “not-living”. Until the end of existence, the worst mind shall be for the wrongful, and the best mind shall be for the righteous. – Avesta, Yasna 30.3-4

Perhaps Empedocles continued the lineage of the Magi in a Greek context? Like the Zoroastrian version, his belief in Love and Strife as primal cosmic principles led to a conception of time, ages, and cycles dominated by either Love or Strife, and he imagined a long-forgotten golden age where Love (Aphrodite) had ruled.

No Atoms and No Void

They posit motion, but remove the void from things; they leave their matter soft and porous … yet never admit void to their substances. – Lucretius, in DRN, Liber Primvs, 742-745

Lucretius elsewhere cites the example of sponges, and the argument that motion requires empty space for bodies to move into. Immediately after this passage, Lucretius says:

Then, of the cutting of things they make no end whatever, nor any stopping place for breakage nor any fixed “least size” in all the world … 

Which indicates that Empedocles denied the existence of a-tomoi (atoms, uncuttable particles), but atomism provides a better answer to the questions considered here than the model that posits four primal elements. These arguments must have occupied portions of Hermarchus’ 22 books. 

Empedocles’ Influence on Lucretius

Among the philosophers mentioned and criticized in DRN, Empedocles occupies a larger part than the rest. Lucretius, in Liber Primvs 714-715, argues against “those who think the world is made of four things, composed of fire and earth and air and rain. Chief in their ranks, Empedocles …”, and yet the poet praises Empedocles’ “godlike mind”, a term which he also uses for Epicurus. After praising both the land and the people of his birth, Lucretius says of Empedocles: 

“… yet (the land) had nothing to outshine this man, nothing more saintly, wonderful, beloved. Yes, more: the writings of his godlike mind declare and propound his brilliant theories, so that we scarce believe him born of man.” – Lucretius, in DRN, Liber Primvs, 729-735 

Lucretius then goes on to refer to all the other philosophers he has mentioned recently as “lesser men in a thousand signal ways, inferior far” to Empedocles, and yet all of these thinkers (Empedocles included) 

“… in basic doctrine they came crashing down–great men they were, and great was the fall thereof!” – Lucretius, in DRN, Liber Primvs, 740-741

Why is so much praise mixed into this criticism? I believe it’s because even if the ancient Epicureans were reacting against some of his ideas, we know that they also endorsed and developed some of his other ideas and considered them indispensable within the Epicurean system–as in the case of the belief that evolution occurs by blind natural selection, with nature taking its course as in Taoism, and with no Aristotelian teleology. Therefore, they had to recognize the important advance made by Empedocles when considered against preceding and contemporary thinkers, even if they criticize his errors elsewhere.

Frank Copley, in his translation of De rerum natura (page 18, note 9) goes as far as to argue that Lucretius probably modeled De rerum natura on Empedocles’ On Nature.

Conclusion

There must have been many more discussions in Hermarchus’ 22 books, perhaps criticizing the Orphic, Pythagorean, and mystical tendencies of Empedocles, and celebrating or elaborating some of his other ideas. However, the above should give us clues as to the evolution of ancient thought as it happened among the Epicureans, together with a sense that just as we continue the conversations of Epicurus, Metrodorus, Lucretius, Philodemus, and others when we gather at Eikas, similarly our predecessors were also continuing the conversations of their own predecessors, rejecting some ideas and expanding on their arguments elsewhere, and slowly perfecting their own theories in this manner.

Happy Twentieth: The Lucretian Parable of the Alphabet

Eikas cheers to all! Speaking of the Twentieth feast–this month, Paste magazine published the essay Eikas: The Dinner Party as Philosophy. The author makes the case that traditions like the Twentieth feast help to keep us human, rooted, and connected (particularly during the pandemic).

Our Friend Nate has added his compilation of multiple translations of the Kyriai Doxai in academia.edu as Key Doctrines of Epicurus. This is the most comprehensive compilation of translations of the PDs available.

Other literary updates include the Medium essay Epicurean philosophy as a way of life in Antiquity, and someone found a figurine from that Roman Era in England that they believe is Epicurus: Finds tray – Epicurus figurine.

The Lucretian Parable of the Alphabet

Nunc age dicta meo dulci quaesita labore percipe.

Come now and hear the words I chose with joy and care.

– Lucretius, De rerum natura, Liber Secvndvs, 730

In Atomic Poetics: Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura, Gwendolyn Gruber says:

Atoms are like letters, Lucretius explains in Book 2 of De Rerum Natura. The finite number of various atomic shapes combine to create all the different things in the universe, just as the letters of the alphabet can be recombined in a variety of ways to create different words … This analogy can also be applied to Lucretius’ poetic endeavor. Just as the atoms join to make objects, Lucretius puts letters together to create words, and words together to create poetry. Just as combinations of atoms join to make large things, including the universe, Lucretius connects words and verses to produce a grand epic. In writing De Rerum Natura, Lucretius mimics the activity of the atoms and the poem’s structure can be viewed as a metaphor for Epicurean atomic theory.

As an author and word-smith, I’ve always loved the parable of the alphabet in De rerum natura. In the pen of Lucretius, the elements of nature create poetry, art, medicine, knowledge, values, meaning, and all the other things that letters can create. Nature makes art in the pen of Lucretius. Nature (which includes us) makes culture and artifice in the pen of Lucretius. Here are the relevant passages:

Nay, here in these our verses,
Elements many, common to many words,
Thou seest, though yet ’tis needful to confess
The words and verses differ, each from each,
Compounded out of different elements-
Not since few only, as common letters, run
Through all the words, or no two words are made,
One and the other, from all like elements,
But since they all, as general rule, are not
The same as all. Thus, too, in other things,
Whilst many germs common to many things
There are, yet they, combined among themselves,
Can form new wholes to others quite unlike.

– De rerum natura, Liber Secvndvs, 708-720

And again:

Why, even in these our very verses here
It matters much with what and in what order
Each element is set: the same denote
Sky, and the ocean, lands, and streams, and sun;
The same, the grains, and trees, and living things.
And if not all alike, at least the most-
But what distinctions by positions wrought!
And thus no less in things themselves, when once
Around are changed the intervals between,
The paths of matter, its connections, weights,
Blows, clashings, motions, order, structure, shapes,
The things themselves must likewise changed be.

– De rerum natura, Liber Secvndvs, 1012-1022

Lucretius returned more than once to the metaphor of the alphabet. It had been mentioned casually in Liber Primvs 196-198:

Thus easier ’tis to hold that many things
Have primal bodies in common (as we see
The single letters common to many words)
Than aught exists without its origins.

Now, in order to understand how brilliant this Lucretian parable is, and how it relates to the physics of Epicurus, we must understand that in his Epistle to Herodotus (tmíma/portion 42 in the Laertian division system), Epicurus asserts that there is an infinite number of atoms, but that these atoms assume a finite variety and number of possible combinations.

Furthermore, the atoms, which have no void in them–out of which composite bodies arise and into which they are dissolved–vary indefinitely in their shapes; for so many varieties of things as we see could never have arisen out of a recurrence of a definite number of the same shapes. The like atoms of each shape are absolutely infinite; but the variety of shapes, though indefinitely large, is not absolutely infinite.

Later, in De rerum natura, Liber Secvndvs, 496-499, Lucretius reiterates this by arguing that if elemental particles had infinite varieties of shapes, some of them would be visible to the naked eye, which is not what we observe:

Therefore you have no right to think atoms may vary indefinitely in shape; else you may force some to assume portentous vastness–but this I’ve shown cannot be true.

These particular portions of the Epistle to Herodotus and DRN are the thought-provoking key to developing a clear understanding of the Doctrine of Innumerable Worlds, and Epicurean cosmology in general, but in this essay I’d like to focus on the parable itself.

Nature’s Grammar

Just as each alphabetical system only has on average somewhere between 20-30 letters (“the atomic elements” within the parable) which must be combined to make words, similarly the laws of nature only allow for certain types of particles, and certain forms of atomic combinations:

  • We see that the size and behavior of gas, ocean, and rocky planets depend on factors like access to solar light, pressure, distance from their star, mass accrued, and elements contained. Planets are not rocky if they grow beyond a certain size.
  • We see that each element behaves differently at diverse temperatures: water acts as ice or gas at certain degrees, and so do other elements, which is why on Earth we have a water-ocean and in Titan there are lakes of methane at freezing temperatures.
  • We see that different elements interact differently with each other, some joining together and others repelling each other, according to their properties, etc.

The limits of what is possible are set by the elemental particles and their possible combinations. In this way, the limits set by nature allow us to perceive order in the cosmos and to articulate scientific truths.

In Lucretius’ pen, nature has a grammar. Sometimes elements interact in a manner that is active or dynamic (forming something like a verb within a sentence, which carries the action). Sometimes two bodies interact so that they change each other, like an adjective changes a noun. Sometimes their interaction is so dramatic that they form a new compound word, in the same way that in lichen life-forms, fungi and algae become a single symbiotic life-form-system. The preceding simple nouns have combined.

The rules of nature’s grammar are pragmatically discernible just as our language faculty allow us to make words discernible to us. If you say “QYTP” to someone who speaks Spanish, that person will not make sense of what you’ve said because this particular combination of letters does not produce meaning in Spanish. If you say “sol”, or “luna”, that person will understand that you speak of the sun and the moon because this particular combination of letters produces those meanings. The natural elements are like these letters within the language in which we can read nature.

The idea of nature’s grammar reminds me of the four “letters” that we find in the double strand of DNA: G, T, C, A. They’re not “letters”, they’re molecules, but they operate like letters to create information in our cells, and scientists have always casually compared them to and treated them as letters. They’re only four, and their possible combinations are strictly limited, yet together they form a wonderful variety of life.

One of the things that Lucretius is saying in this parable, is that we can find “meaning” in  the study of nature and in the realism it unveils (since meaning can only be expressed in signs in some way, which are constituted by these elemental “letters”). When in Liber Tertivs, Lucretius explains how scents and chemicals travel in the air and are picked up by the nose, he poetically refers to these particles as “winged words”.

This parable aligns with the Epicurean Guides’ insistence that our words must correspond clearly with the nature of things. This insistence necessitates the conviction that it is indeed possible to express the true nature of things in human language. This belief is part of the philosophical foundation on which this parable stands, and is attested elsewhere in Epicurean writings, even if the methodology needed for this is sometimes admittedly problematic.

An Anti-Skeptic Commentary

Parables are useful, but they cannot replace the true nature of things. One difference between our alphabets and the elements is that, unlike the letters of the alphabet, the elements are not subject to cultural or philosophical relativism. Gravity will always pull our bodies down. H2O molecules will always behave and exist as water in nature’s grammar.

I read in this parable a positive statement of the possibility of pragmatic knowledge–an assertion that we can, indeed, articulate the nature of things with the use of conventional language. This makes it possible to have established scientific theories, as well as orthodox beliefs about the nature of things that are based on the evidence and the study of nature.

One ethically-significant value that is contained in this belief is intellectual honesty, which is essential in an evidence-based philosophical system like ours. To an Epicurean, defense of this belief constitutes a defense of intellectual honesty–which is to say, trust in the evidence of nature, and clarity of speech.

This belief in the possibility of knowledge was and is still rejected by committed Skeptics, who argue that words (signs, to linguists) are not the same as the things they name (signifiers). This is true: language is a cognitive means to apprehend the nature of things. But only mystics and magicians claim that the word is the thing meant: words are signs that refer to the things that are meant or signified. Notice that the prolepsis of the word “signify” (signi-ficare, “sign-making” in verb form) implies that the things that are meant are made into signs. Language is a sign-making technology.

The Epicureans have always insisted on clear speech. Language must be clear in order to fulfill its utility. The concrete signs we use must align clearly with the nature of things.

We also insist that our meaning-making faculty of conceptualization (prolepsis) is part of the Canon, or standard of truth. Since the prolepsis of words derives from an original attestation, words reliably denote something that was at one point empirically available to someone, and words therefore can have empirical and pragmatic origins.

This is not to say that we deny the difficulties we sometimes encounter in this challenge to speak clearly. Case studies concerning the incorrect use of language led the original Epicureans to a process of language reform in the service of clarity, and influenced a “third stage of language development” within the Epicurean theory of language, where philosophers, and experts in various fields of knowledge, develop methods by which they apply the prolepsis of common language to the coining of new words of specialized abstract, scientific, or ethical utility.

An Anti-Nihilist Commentary

Since Epicurus says that philosophy that does not cure the soul is no better than medicine that does not heal the body, we apply the therapeutic interpretation to our sources in order to gain insights about the utility of the Doxai of the Epicurean Guides. This parable contains, in my view, philosophical medicine for the type of nihilism that rejects all values. It argues an ontological realism that says that we have the faculty to discern truths and values in nature. Whatever difficulties we may find in this activity do not justify giving up on the task of articulating the nature of things using language.

Let us use a case study to see how the ethics and physics intersect in our system, producing ethical values from the study of nature that must be part of our hedonic calculus, of our choices and rejections. The value of water is undeniable for humans: we can live without food for 21 days, but we can only survive no more than three days without water. The “value” of H2O is, therefore, not culturally relative. In our bodies, the absence of H2O is experienced as a pain of lack (thirst, and other symptoms in an advance stage), while we observe that a natural measure of the presence of it is experienced as health, vitality, and pleasure. The pleasures and pains produced by H2O molecules in our bodies (or lack thereof) are not a matter of debate, but of physical observation. Access to water is a natural and necessary desire. Each human being needs a certain amount of water to survive. This is why all ancient civilizations emerged alongside water sources and rivers.

Valid and true philosophical and scientific statements that help us to form clear and unerring models of the nature of things have tangible, pragmatic value for how we live and how we plan our lives and communities. We are entering a dangerous time of restricted access to water resources in many places, where the distinction between the necessary desires and unnecessary or arbitrary ones will become painfully clear to many. There’s talk of water wars in the future (although the water wars have already happened in places like Bolivia), and access to this basic resource will increasingly become a prominent economic, ethical and political issue in the coming decades.

Thanks to the constitution of our bodies and our particular faculties, certain values exist in nature. In this way, the Epicurean “study of nature” has an acidic effect on nihilism (if you’ll indulge my chemistry metaphor), if nihilism is defined as the complete absence of definite and clear values.

The Elements of Right Living

There is another way in which this philosophical application of physics insights in the realm of ethics fights nihilism: it creates concrete pleasures, values, and meaning. Epicurus refers to the contents of his Epistle to Menoeceus as comprising the “elements of right living” … which–just like the elements of nature–must be incorporated and constituted together, so that we live ethical and pleasant lives.

Small things show the likeness of larger and the steps that lead to knowledge. – Lucretius, De rerum natura, Liber Secvndvs, 123-124

Elements combine to form bodies of greater and greater complexity, which in turn at greater magnitudes show specific emergent properties. Similarly, large projects must be tackled in the details, in the small things, day by day, moment by moment. Great works are not completed in a day. By applying this model of elemental combination–and the emergence paradigm–to our choices and rejections, to how we plan our lives, we may more efficiently accomplish great works in the long term.

Norman DeWitt ascribed the following proverb to Epicurean philosophy: “The unplanned life is not worth living“. Even philosophers of nihilistic tendency, like many Existentialists, argue that we can create meaning and value by enacting existential projects that render our lives pleasant, meaningful, and complete. Planning requires concrete combinations of many elements.

A Grammar of Salvific Pleasure

The self-referential comparison of the verses in De rerum natura to honey in Liber Qvartvs 9-25 means to sweeten the harsh medicine of philosophy, points to pleasure / sweetness as an ethical point of reference, and asserts that it is possible to combine elemental letters into philosophical and ethical medicine. Here is the Lucretian passage:

First, since I teach concerning mighty things,
And go right on to loose from round the mind
The tightened coils of dread religion;
Next, since, concerning themes so dark, I frame
Song so pellucid, touching all throughout
Even with the Muses’ charm- which, as ‘twould seem,
Is not without a reasonable ground:
For as physicians, when they seek to give
Young boys the nauseous wormwood, first do touch
The brim around the cup with the sweet juice
And yellow of the honey, in order that
The thoughtless age of boyhood be cajoled
As far as the lips, and meanwhile swallow down
The wormwood’s bitter draught, and, though befooled,
Be yet not merely duped, but rather thus
Grow strong again with recreated health:
So now I too (since this my doctrine seems
In general somewhat woeful unto those
Who’ve had it not in hand, and since the crowd
Starts back from it in horror) have desired
To expound our doctrine unto thee in song
Soft-speaking and Pierian, and, as ’twere,
To touch it with sweet honey of the Muse-
If by such method haply I might hold
The mind of thee upon these lines of ours,
Till thou dost learn the nature of all things
And understandest their utility.

This passage concerns the nature of true and therapeutic philosophy itself, which is concretely made up of these words that Lucretius has smeared in poetic honey. He elsewhere refers to Epicurus’ words as “Aurea Dicta” (golden words … worthy of immortal life), and compares them to ambrosia, the nectar of immortality.

In Vatican Saying 41, the Scholarch Hermarchus outlines a practice that involves concrete utterances being spoken out-loud (phonás aphientas, scattered sounds). Philodemus, too, said that the medicine of true philosophy is found in its healing words. Since the Epicurean Guides have an agenda of healing the souls, the parable of the alphabet is more than a passive contemplation of theory: it’s a dynamic part of a salvific toolkit. Epicurus and Lucretius are like shamanic guides who combine letters and words to make philosophical cures for the soul.

In the pen of Lucretius, poetry can be more than poetry. Art can be more than art. Some word combinations may heal nihilistic tendencies, or cure our fears. They may have a superior potency, a medicinal use, but there’s nothing mystical about them: they’re still made up of the same elemental letters as every other word.

Happy Twentieth! Epicurean Gratitude Prayer

Eikas cheers to all! We have a new Society of Epicurus Q and A. This month, Psychology Today published the essay It’s time to give up the ghost idea, which presents arguments that are very in line with Epicurean philosophy concerning the Platonic / supernatural soul. On our social media, we have been sharing quotes from Mill’s essay / short book titled On Liberty, which was a great pleasure to read.

The YouTube channel Real History published Herculaneum: A Fate Worse Than Pompeii, Vesuvius Uncovered, which focuses on the archaeological discoveries at the site. We have uploaded recordings of several of our past Eikas programs for the educational benefit of all:

November 2021 – The Method of Multiple Explanations
January 2022 – On Moral Development
February 2022 – Coping with Loss and Mortality
March 2022 – Friendship, A Divine Good
April 2022 – Parrhesia, the Practice of Frank Criticism
June 2022 – Issues in Epicurean Friendship: Marriage and Sex
July 2022 – The Women of the Epicurean Garden

The various decisions that have come out of the current conservative Justices of the US Supreme Court in recent weeks have created a new paradigm in terms of civil rights. Never before in US history had so many civil rights been under threat of being rolled back. Never (at least in recent memory) had this much religiosity sought to shove itself into our private and public lives. Curious addendum to our last Eikas message on the nature of rights. And never since the Spanish Inquisition had fascist elements within the Catholic Church had so much power over the judicial branch of a Western country’s government.

Of the court’s decisions, the one favoring prayer at public events is a disturbing one for those of us who strongly support the separation of church and state, since this looks like government-endorsed (and perhaps enforced?) religiosity. But that’s outside of our control (except, maybe, when it’s time to vote). When I think of constructive Epicurean answers to the crisis our Western secular values are in, I remember that Epicurus was not against public piety–even if he must have shared my suspicions about the type of religious propaganda that often finds its way into public prayer … but then again, even Jesus in Matthew 6 shares my suspicion.

If you’re an Epicurean (or an Atheist or Humanist), and wish to be a cooperative and engaged citizen, and you are called upon to pray, and you wish to use a prayer that is aligned with the study of nature, then here is a prayer that Epicureans have been using for over two thousand years:

“We thank Nature because she made the necessary things easy to get, and because the things that are hard to get she made them unnecessary.”

The prayer paraphrases insights from the meleta derived from Principal Doctrines 26, 29 and 30. It’s also an opportunity or reminder to engage in the practice of gratitude, which is beneficial for our happiness. Also, since Epicureans do not believe in petitionary prayer (except as poetry), our gratitude prayer is probably our most prudent and constructive contribution to the discussion of prayer in the public sphere.

Society of Epicurus Q & A

How long has SoFE been around?

The Society of Friends of Epicurus was founded on the 16th of February of 2013. For more about the SoFE, please enjoy the video SoFE: a philosophical community. We also have an About Us page.

What writings do you consider authoritative or canonical?

Our tradition emanates mainly from the Principal Doctrines and the Epistles to Menoeceus, Herodotus, and Pythocles, as well as Epicurus’ Final Will and Testament. Most of our sources ultimately came through Diogenes Laertius’ tenth book of Lives of Eminent philosophers. As secondary sources, we use the six books in Lucretius’ De rerum natura, the scrolls of Philodemus, and portions of Diogenes of Oenoanda’s Wall Inscription.

What do Epicureans believe?

Things are made of matter, our opinions should be based on the study of nature, friendships are sacred, and life should be lived pleasantly.

Is Epicureanism a religious identity?

Most of us see it as such. For more, please read the essay Epicureanism as a religious identity. The basic argument is that Epicurean philosophy fulfills the seven dimensions of religion recognized by anthropologist Ninian Smart. This includes ethics, community, scripture-like texts, a calendar, regular gatherings and traditions, rituals (particularly Eikas), etc.

For the purposes of legal challenges in courts, Epicurean philosophy also provides ethical and philosophical guidelines that could be defended in the court of law on the grounds that they are sincerely held beliefs. For instance, if there’s ever a case where a person might be forced by the state or by a Christian or Muslim majority to undertake some action which may be objectionable because there is no empirical evidence to justify it, or because empirical evidence contradicts it or deems it harmful, the individual could claim that he follows Principal Doctrine 24, which establishes a taboo of separation of that which is clear and evident from that which is not yet clear and evident.

How does one celebrate Eikas?

The SoFE guidelines include two elements: the Libation (this is simply a toast in memory of Epicurus and Metrodorus, as per Epicurus’ Final Will) and the Program (an educational component related to philosophy). Our Eikas programs usually last about two hours and are done via zoom. This video delves into Eikas in more depth

I am doing a student (or media) project and have questions?

Please feel free to contact us at friendsofepicurus@gmail.com.

How can I help promote Epicureanism, or help you in your mission? I want to volunteer?

Please feel free to contact us at friendsofepicurus@gmail.com and tell us about your skill set.

How can I join?

Our main virtual space is the Garden of Epicurus facebook group. From there, you would get invited to our Eikas zoom meetings. After over a year of fruitful and friendly participation, Friends are eligible for membership in the SoFE.

Hiram Crespo Q&A

The following questions were submitted to Hiram Crespo, founder of SoFE and author of Tending the Epicurean Garden and other books.

(RF says:) To what degree does aesthetics play within Epicurean philosophy?

From the founders, we have this saying:

I spit upon beauty and those who admire it, if it brings no joy. – Epicurean Fragment 512

He’s basically saying: “I spit on [aesthetics, art] if it does not produce pleasure“, so beauty is a potential means to pleasure. 

As to the ontological status of beauty, a Herculaneum scroll titled “Irrational Contempt” by the third Scholarch of the Athens Garden, Polystratus, argues that beauty and ugliness both are real and both exist as relational properties of bodies. He compares this to when a magnet attracts some rocks but not others, or when a plant heals some diseases but not others, or when peanuts give allergies to some people but not others. These relational properties are real, but require interactions between two or more bodies to take place. In this way, he argued that the subjective experience of beauty and ugliness can exist in nature, in the bodies.

Beyond this, I’d invite you to read “The Sculpted Word“, a book on Epicurean sculpture and plastic arts and how they’ve been historically used in the recruitment of new Epicureans. This is the most in-depth evaluation of Epicurean aesthetics I know of. A modern French thinker who has been influenced by Epicurus is Michel Onfray, who views art as a means for the creation of meaning and takes the time to focus on and critique nihilist, psychotic art, which he perceives as a misuse of the meaning-endowing power and purpose of art.

Beauty has a history. – Michel Onfray

Onfray criticizes nihilist songs and movies that offer “no overcoming”, and artifacts as “altars to consumerist nihilism”. Onfray likewise is critical of the view that art changes or informs history, arguing that instead “art comes from history”. Material conditions exist first, and only then do ideas emerge from those conditions that are able to create art. He is arguing for a materialist, non-Platonic aesthetic.

(RF says:) How should I deal with anger? 

A full review of Philodemus’ scroll on anger is beyond the scope of this Q and A, but a modern translation and commentary on the book is available from book sellers. 

To summarize: the basic technique is to pause, and to figure out if your anger is natural and rational (does the initial pang of indignation point to a natural and necessary good being deliberately denied to you?). If anger is neither rational nor natural, it’s easily discarded. If you endorse the natural and rational anger, then you may choose to make it productive, to channel it into a course of action that leads to net pleasure. This is how we transform the poison of anger into the medicine of pleasure.

(RF says:) How can I find peace in such a chaotic world? 

Study philosophy. Stay away from the news cycle. Spend lots of time with good, wholesome friends.

(RF says:) How do I stop the fear of death?

There are several therapeutic arguments in EP for dealing with death. Epicurus’ arguments concerning how death is non-sentience is found in Principal Doctrine 2 and in his Epistle to Menoeceus, where he argues from the ontological status of death as non-being by saying:

So death, the most frightening of bad things, is nothing to us; since when we exist death is not yet present, and when death is present, we do not exist. Therefore it is relevant neither to the living nor the dead, since it does not affect the former, and the latter do not exist. Most people flee death as the greatest of bad things and sometimes choose it as a relief from the bad things of life. But the wise man neither rejects life nor fears death.

Philodemus’ scroll On Death is a compilation of all the repercussions of PD2, and it’s also available in translation with commentary. Lucretius offers other therapeutic arguments: the symmetry argument compares the time after we die with the time before we are born. Both are eternal and, just as we do not remember what happened before birth, similarly we will not remember what happens after death. Another Lucretian argument compares death to sleep. A careful study of all these sources will help you to cognitively assimilate Principal Doctrine 2 in all its repercussions.

(JW says:) Perhaps some clarity on Epicurean attitudes to love and sex, as well as to political action?

The Epicurean Guides left this: 

[addressing a young man] I understand from you that your natural disposition is too much inclined toward sexual passion. Follow your inclination as you will, provided only that you neither violate the laws, disturb well-established customs, harm any one of your neighbors, injure your own body, nor waste your possessions. That you be not checked by one or more of these provisos is impossible; for a man never gets any good from sexual passion, and he is fortunate if he does not receive harm. – Vatican Saying 51

Which lists some of the potential dangers of passionate love, however some of the founders were themselves married, so clearly marriage can pass hedonic calculus and each individual must carry out his or her own calculus based on circumstances.

Concerning political action, Principal Doctrine 6 says that anything that we do for the sake of safety is naturally good (including some extent of involvement in politics), and Principal Doctrine 7 says that so long as we acquire safety from other men, we may have attained a natural good by political involvement, but if we do not, then we did not. So the key to consider is whether we are really pursuing a natural good, or an empty value.

(EJC says:) Can a person accept an Epicurean ethic without accepting an Epicurean metaphysic? 

We don’t have metaphysics, only physics, and ethics are intertwined with the physics in a manner that is coherent. So while you could benefit from the ethics, without the physics you’re not on firm ground and you may probably encounter cognitive dissonance. Pierre Gassendi was a Catholic priest who attempted to syncretize his faith with Epicurean philosophy, but his system was incoherent. It’s not clear to me whether Thomas Jefferson believed in the afterlife, but he did not believe in the supernatural and his view of God was deist. It’s possible that Jefferson equated God with Nature, in which case we have no quarrel with that, and in fact replacing God with “Nature” is probably the most honest way to reimagine God as an Epicurean without falling into incoherence.

(GB says:) Central things I feel some distance to, but wonder about, is (1) how I am meant to experientially understand natural/non-natural desires, and (2) how I am meant to experientially understand necessary/unnecessary desires?

The problem of what is defined as “natural” was controversial even in the days of the Scholarchs Demetrius Lacon and Zeno of Sidon, who deliberated about this subject. Here is the meleta (deliberation) we have from them on the ambiguity of “by nature”:

The Scholarch Zeno of Sidon and his entourage had explored the ambiguities deriving from different meanings of the term “natural” this way: Man is said to be “by nature” a procurer of food, because he does this by unperverted instinct; “by nature” susceptible to pain because he is so by compulsion; “by nature” to pursue virtue, because he does it to his own advantage.

According to Demetrius of Laconia, the expression “by nature” in Epicurus’ statement does not mean without perversion or distortion, but freely, without compulsion or force. He may have said this because other Epicureans were arguing that naturalness is opposed to perversion (by culture, by convention, by upbringing, or by association), and it’s possible that these other Epicureans were on to something.

Based on all these instances, we see various ways in which something may be natural: it may be unforced or uncompelled; it may be advantageous; it may be sound, based on correct views and a correct assessment of relevant factors; or it may be an unperverted reaction to an intentional offense.

Therefore, we cannot presume to have a conclusive answer on the meaning of “natural” today if even Scholarchs of direct lineage were deliberating on this over 2,000 years ago, but we can rely on their interpretations, so long as they are not mutually contradictory.

Principal Doctrine 30 gives us insights into what would be an unnatural desire: if you get no pain when it’s unsatisfied, it’s a vain and empty desire. Also, if you must pursue it with intensity or great effort, it’s unnatural, because natural desires are easy to get by definition. Those are the two criteria for unnatural desires.

Those natural desires which entail no pain when unsatisfied, though pursued with an intense effort, are also due to groundless opinion; and it is not because of their own nature they are not got rid of but because of man’s groundless opinions.

Concerning unnecessary desires, Principal Doctrine 26 defines unnecessary desires (they do not lead to pain when unsatisfied) and says that if an unnecessary desire is harmful or difficult to get, we can easily get rid of it.

All desires that do not lead to pain when they remain unsatisfied are unnecessary, but the desire is easily got rid of, when the thing desired is difficult to obtain or the desires seem likely to produce harm.

So, based on all this, you should treat your desires as case studies and see to which ones these criteria apply, and practice Vatican Saying 71:

Question each of your desires: “What will happen to me if that which this desire seeks is achieved, and what if it is not?”

(EJC says:) What would be the purpose of devotional items for an epicurean? Are prayers offered to Epicurus? It seems like that wouldn’t be reconcilable with Epicurean Metaphysics and Epicurus’ views on death (i.e. the dead person not existing anymore)

Prayers are not offered to Epicurus, but the Doctrines are sometimes repeated and memorized. There is one fragment that demonstrates that ancient Epicureans offered this prayer to Nature itself: “We thank Divine Nature because she made the necessary things easy to get, and because the things that are hard to get she made them unnecessary”.

The SoFE accepts three interpretations of the gods as justifiable conclusions: the realist interpretation (gods are real, physical beings with bodies made of particles), the non-realist interpretation (gods are imagined constructs with ethical utility), and the atheist interpretation (gods do not pass the test of the canon and/or are not useful ethically).

The realists argue that the gods are real cosmic beings who emit particles that affect the psyche and give pleasure, but this view is challenged today by Epicureans who argue that, since the universe is expanding, the particles coming from extraterrestrial blissful beings would eventually stop reaching us.

The non-realists believe that, even if the gods do not exist, there are still benefits to pious practices, and they are interested in the psychosomatic effects of pious practices. This view is based on studies concerning chanting, meditation, and other pious practices that have health benefits. The reason why this view is justified is that Epicurus did say that to pray is natural, and one of the Vatican Sayings explains that the benefits of honoring a sage are for the one who does the honoring. Another reason why this view is justified, is that we have no evidence of the gods, but we do have evidence concerning the benefits of piety. Since our canon is based on epilogismos, or thinking pragmatically and based on evidence, therefore religious techniques are a legitimate way to practice Epicurean philosophy. Also, in this interpretation, the idea of theistic or non-theistic religion as art–or as a technique for living–can be explored.

The atheist interpretation is modern, and rejects the utility of piety as well as the ontological status of the gods. This view is respected, in part, because Philodemus said in his scroll On Piety that everyone should be considered impious, insofar as no one has been able to demonstrate the existence of the gods.

(from Caleb) I’m curious about your thoughts on why Stoicism seems to have gotten legs and taken off a lot faster than Epicureanism in modern times. 

I think Stoicism is familiar to people who come from Christianity because they have come to accept Divine Providence, and many Christians practice Stoicism (for ex. The “serenity prayer”) without knowing they’re practicism Stoicism. And so people from a Christian background might consider Stoicism as a familiar way of thinking. Perhaps if more Christians were aware of the intersection between ancient Epicurean and Christian communities, they might think of Epicurus as a familiar figure. 

One additional factor is that–as Michel Onfray has argued in his counter-history of philosophy–there have been attempts to erase Epicurus from history by both Platonists and Christians, and in academia. Lucian’s comedy Alexander the Oracle Monger shows that some ancient Pagans took to burning The Principal Doctrines after being mocked by Epicureans, so there was additional sectarian hostility from Pagans.

However, rather than focus on why other philosophies get more attention, I would challenge Epicureans to become more visible and to share Epicurean memes, teachings, and essays with others of like mind, as Epicurus advised in his Letter to Menoeceus. If more of us add visibility to Epicureanism, then EP will be more visible and people will have more opportunities to learn about it.

(from Caleb) I’m curious about how a modern Epicurean would address a circumstance in which it was fairly well empirically demonstrated that one of the traditional Epicurean tenets was inaccurate (hedonism, the afterlife, free will). I’m not implying that this has happened (or even could in one of those cases). I’m mostly curious about how one would navigate a situation when research no longer supports a defining teaching. 

As to hedonism being “inaccurate”, I’m not sure how this would even be demonstrated. Pleasure and pain are experienced with enargeia (immediacy, clarity) and are subjective, so how can they be “inaccurate”? 

As to the afterlife, NDE (near-death experience) research shows that the brain produces visionary experiences when deprived of oxygen, so it seems like our bodies have the wisdom to die in a manner that diminishes suffering. The visions people have when they report NDE’s are tied to what’s happening in the brain and do not prove the supernatural claims they often make (which are mutually contradictory, anyway). I’m not sure what would constitute evidence for an afterlife, since anyone having enargeia / clarity of its apprehension would have to be dead. Lucretius rejects the idea of reincarnation, by asking why we do not retain memory of previous lives.

Concerning free will, it’s not clear how it could be proven that we do not have free will, because for all practical purposes we observe choices, avoidances and rejections being made. The description of the natural process of choices and avoidances in the particles or bodies does not prove that choices do not exist, it merely shows a natural mechanism by which they happen. If one were looking for a non-natural mechanism for choices to happen, then one would be chasing a ghost. Epicurus replied to these challenges by saying that, judging by the logic of the question, the person who concluded that there is no choice and the person who concluded the opposite were pre-determined to conclude this way, and this does not change the practical repercussions of their views. Perhaps others have more satisfying answers to this.

It seems that the Epicurean attitude towards these questions has to do with the level of rigor with which we admit evidence for the claims being made, and with the nature and interpretation of said evidence.

One final note must be made here concerning the self-updating of beliefs in an evidence-based worldview. Epicurean beliefs are based on the evidence of nature, and the Epicurean canon (standard of truth) is empirical and pragmatic. If the evidence points to new data and new theories, we will continue to adjust our ideas about the nature of things, as all evidence-based thinking does. In this way–and unlike religious worldviews–Epicurean cosmology continues expanding and evolving, for instance, with exoplanetary and neuroplasticity research.

Most importantly, we will continue applying our methods of philosophy (pragmatic and therapeutic, for the healing of the soul) rather than turn to speculative methods.

Happy Twentieth! On the Nature of Rights

Eikas cheers to all our readers. This month, we discovered the video Lucretius the Epicurean Poet, a friendly and short introduction to Lucretius’ De rerum natura. We also published a book review of The Happiness Diet, and considered whether this means that the nutrients that are considered essential (that is, that our body cannot make on its own) for both health and happiness must be incorporated into our hedonic regimen.

The thought-provoking Psyche.co essay Don’t be Stoic argues that prominent ancient Stoics show Stoicism’s perniciousness as the “philosophy of collaborators”, and shares case-studies of how Stoicism encourages collaboration with tyranny and cruelty by convincing people to completely submit to fate. In my mind, this is only a little different from Catholic instructions to “bear your cross”.

The essay Classifying the Epicurean Goods, by Alex R Gillham was shared with us. It invites us into a discussion of the “immortal goods” that Epicurus mentions in his Epistle to Menoeceus, and into what other goods exist in our ethics. It’s beyond the scope of this Twentieth message to delve too deeply into the essay, but I will mention that one method that Epicureans may use to move from the abstract to the concrete is to refer to them in the plural. In this case, “The Good” (which is a Platonic idea) is transformed into something useful and concrete–“the goods”. Even better–the author mentions intrinsic goods versus instrumental goods, etc., with specific mention of which goods are being discussed. This specificity de-Platonizes the Good and/or naturalizes the goods.

Today I’d like to consider the case study of the Pallini Declaration, better known as the Declaration of the right of happiness in the European Union, in light of Epicurean doctrines on justice and on the canon. The Pallini Declaration was co-edited by a group of Epicureans from Greece in 2014, with the intention of requesting that the European Union recognize the right to happiness as a foundational European value. Here is the Declaration:

One of the main foundations of European civilization is philosophy. Aristotle and Epicurus realized that the purpose of philosophy is happiness (well-being). Epicurus taught that happiness corresponds to absence of mental and physical pain and may be attained though observation of nature, prudence, free will, virtue and friendship.

Many centuries later, in 1776, the main author of the American Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, influenced by Epicurus’ teachings, included among basic human rights the right of pursuit of happiness. In 2012, the United Nations decided to recognize that the pursue of happiness is a fundamental human goal and right, designating the 20th of March of every year as International day of Happiness.

Given the fact that the right to pursue happiness is not included in the 54 articles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2010/C 83/02), we ask for the recognition of this right of happiness in the European Union, since it is self-evident that it is a fundamental human right and its non-recognition in any part of the world constitutes the violation of this natural right.

The Friends of Epicurean Philosophy “Garden” of Greece
4th Pan-Hellenic Symposium of Epicurean Philosophy
Pallini, Athens, Greece
February 15, 2014

The Pallini Declaration was unveiled during the Epicurean philosophy symposium in February 2014 at Gargettus, in the Municipality of Pallini, where Epicurus had his ancient Garden. The webpage for the Declaration contains some historical background, which ties back to the Greek Constitution and social contract, and reflects the Epicurean conception of agreed-upon law based on the principle of “not harming and not being harmed” (see Epicurus’ Principal Doctrine 31). There were 114 signatures on the Declaration, in honor of the 114 articles of the Greek Constitution.

The following is my meleta on the Pallini Declaration, which is a type of humanist and Epicurean manifesto.

The first paragraph contains three statements which are historical and not controversial, except that some people may have an issue with the statement that some philosophers have “realized” that happiness is the goal of life. This implies that the statement is a discovery and an insight or realization, not an invention. I do not take issue with this–in fact I affirm it–, but I realize that this is a doctrinal statement, framed within the larger tradition of humanist manifestos that includes the Declaration of Independence, the US and French Constitutions, and other documents that are meant to be treated as both social contract, as well as doctrinal (humanist) manifestos.

The second paragraph contains two additional historical statements, which are treated as precedents. It is here that Pallini Declaration appeals to Thomas Jefferson and the Enlightenment ideas that inspired him. In the third paragraph, the Declaration seeks to have a new statute added to what is seen as the social contract that applies to all Europeans.

The Declaration places the “right to happiness” within the context of European values, and ties these values to a shared heritage–which is claimed for all Europeans. Pallini is today where the ancient neighborhood of Gargettus was, where Epicurus founded his Garden around 2,300 years ago, and which for centuries was the seat of the Epicurean Mother Garden. By accentuating its place of origin, the Declaration is an acknowledgement of the deep Epicurean roots of Western civilization. It is a statement of our shared Western values, and claims some level of Epicurean identity or heritage for all Europeans.

Are Rights Self-Evident, or Fictional?

That people have a right to happiness is not exactly what Epicurus argued: he taught that pleasure is a faculty that is native to our organism (“congenital to our nature”) and necessary for our choices and rejections, and that it helps us to discern the natural and pragmatic goal of life. He made a claim about nature, not about rights. The Pallini Declaration is making a new claim, an evolution of that original claim. And it makes a policy recommendation to government.

This level and type of involvement in public affairs is perhaps an innovation, but I argue that this innovation is rooted in Epicurean philosophy. From the perspective of the Doxai, this form of activism in favor of the inclusion of a “right to happiness” as a statute within the official social contract for all Europeans is, among other things, a way of practicing the Doxai on justice (PDs 30-38).

The Pallini Declaration is silent on the nature of “rights”, which can be argued to be fictions written into our legal systems. But notice that it still affirms their utility! From the perspective of the Doxai, by making this particular policy recommendation, the Declaration says that we find it advantageous for mutual association (see PD’s 37-38) to include happiness among the named human rights in our social contract or legal code. In other words, rights (even if fictional) are treated as concrete tokens of Epicurean justice. They’re agreements: useful statutes, or contracts, agreed upon for the sake of mutual association.

This social contract is the means by which Epicureans define justice in concrete terms. By explicitly naming itself Epicurean, the Declaration further recognizes that the right to be happy, once enshrined formally into the social contract and into the cultural and civilizational identity of all Europeans, will help to set the foundation for an Epicurean sense of justice or righteousness in the societies that uphold it. In other words, the recognition of this right to happiness will be a matter of justice and of the social contract, the formally agreed-upon values of all Europeans, and–once enshrined as law–it will be considered unjust to violate this right.

But let us look at the ontological status of rights, since there seems to be an unresolved controversy here. Most humanists believe that rights do not exist conventionally. They are not god-given, as many have claimed, and in fact many of the rights we enjoy today required generations of struggle to attain. But while these rights may be fictions in some sense, they’re still agreed-upon values which, by virtue of the shared agreement among the members of a society, have political and social power. They serve as guidelines for policy and are useful for co-existence. They have utility.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – United States’ Declaration of Independence (edited by Epicurean founding father Thomas Jefferson)

The framers of these humanist manifestos–from the founding fathers to the authors of the Pallini Declaration–are making claims about natural rights which invite a reassessment of the fictional nature of rights. They are taken to be “self-evident”, which is another Epicurean statement of doctrine, and in fact this can also be claimed about the nature of Epicurean justice: that justice can be observed with enargeia (clearly or self-evidently) based on its utility or benefit for mutual association. Since the authors of these manifestos are claiming enargeia (clarity, immediacy of experience) for these truth statements, I argue that they are making specifically Epicurean statements of doctrine that are based on our methods of studying nature. We saw in Principal Doctrine 22 that enargeia is part of the Epicurean toolkit, and that this particular Doctrine is found among the four canonical Doxai that act as a filter for truth claims.

While, to us, the Creator is nature, Jefferson was comfortable using the term “Creator” within the social contract to establish an ecumenical conversation between the various flavors of Christians and Humanists that deliberated on this particular social contract. Concerning life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we observe that humans are often willing to die for these principles, that without them it’s impossible to live well and pleasantly, and that they make life worth-living. Happiness and life (together with health) are included in the three categories of natural and necessary desires that Epicurus mentions in his Epistle to Menoeceus. Therefore, Epicurus was making similar (though not identical) claims in this epistle as Jefferson was making in the Declaration of Independence.

We have reason to be undecided as to the nature of these natural rights. On the one hand, Epicurean philosophy teaches that these rights are self-evident, and therefore that they’re not entirely fictional: they are self-evident and exist in some way. On the other hand, rights are not conventionally real–that is, they are not made up of particles. They seem to be relational, social and cultural products born from our mutual agreement and based on our mutual benefit. I wish to note here how Epicurean justice imitates the tendency towards symbiosis in nature, a system by which living bodies show a tendency to develop mutually-beneficial relations. The bottom line is that the pragmatic necessity of justice makes things like laws and rights a needed feature in all human-centered philosophy.

These are some of our initial deliberations on this, not the final word. We will continue our meleta about the nature of human rights. I’m curious to know what others think.

Happy Twentieth! Principal Doctrine 22: Enargeia and Epilogismos

Eikas cheers to all our friends! This month, the Philosophy Tube channel posted a video presentation titled Transhumanism, which poses some of the same questions concerning the role and utility of technology that were posed when we did meleta on the myth of Prometheus. Someone recommended An Antidote to Dissatisfaction, an educational video on the anthropology and utility of gratitude, and I gave an interview to Argentinian Spanish-language podcaster Pablo Veloso on the book by Norman DeWitt St. Paul and Epicurus, for which I have published a transcript of the English translation for all my Patreon subscribers, regardless of level of support.

The Doctrine of Epilogismos, or Empirical Thinking

Following up on last month’s indictment of the philosophers of the polis (those who “philosophize” for the state) who are willing to place a spurious stamp of “truth” on disinformation, today I wish to continue expounding the Canon (our “standard” of truth, which comprises our epistemology) by sharing a few notes on the Kyriai Doxai. The Canon is an essential part of the Epicurean philosophical Toolkit. Principal Doctrines 22-25 constitute the “Canonics” portion of the Doxai. To these, we may add many commentaries by Lucretius, Norman DeWitt, Philodemus, Diogenes of Oenoanda, and others.

The Literal Interpretation of Doxa 22

You must reflect on the fundamental goal and everything that is clear, to which opinions are referred; if you do not, all will be full of trouble and confusion.

τὸ ὑφεστηκὸς δεῖ τέλος ἐπιλογίζεσθαι καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν ἐνάργειαν, ἐφʼ ἣν τὰ δοξαζόμενα ἀνάγομεν· εἰ δὲ μὴ πάντα ἀκρισίας καὶ ταραχῆς ἔσται μεστά.

Principal Doctrine 22

The following are the transliterations and translations for this Doxa:

  1. To yfestekos – you must reflect on
  2. Dei telos epilogizesthai – on the pragmatic goal
  3. Kai pasan tes enargeian – and all clear things
  4. Ef en ta doxazomena anagomen – To which opinions (doxa) are referred
  5. Ei de me panta akrisias – if you do not, all will be full of confusion (akrisias, or not knowing how to proceed or how to think)
  6. Kaj taraxes estai mesta – and trouble / perturbation

The second and third sentences in this Doxa remind us of how much of a reality-based philosophy this is. “Enargeia” refers to clear, direct, evident, and immediate / unmediated experience. “Telos Epilogizesthai” implies that this telos (goal) is not an abstract or imaginary goal. It has (if we are to judge from the adjective added to it in this Doxa) a goal that is more than mere telos, it’s PRACTICAL THINKING based. It is defined by “epilogismos”. This is our methodology of empirical and pragmatic thinking. Epilogismos is most often translated as the faculty of empirical thinking.

Part of what this Doxa is saying is that the telos (or goal of nature) can be discerned easily by what is known and experienced directly (enargeia), so that it’s pragmatic, useful to our nature. It’s also implying that, in all things, it is important to think clearly on what we are trying to accomplish. This serves the purposes of clear thinking and clear speech, which are among the benefits of the Canon.

Later on in the Doxai, PD 25 deepens our understanding of the Epicurean type of Telos, where it says that the goal of nature is practical while other goals lead to apraxia (impracticality, inability to practice): “your thoughts and your actions will not be in harmony”. I sometimes associate this with inauthenticity, but it seems that the main argument made in the Doxai is against apraxia, and that praxis or practicality is being affirmed here as a positive value.

In the next sentence, this Doxa says that our opinions must be referred to the directly experienced things (pasan tes enargeian) and to the pragmatic goal (telos epilogizesthai). These two criteria are part of the filter for inherited or posited ideas that philosophy furnishes. All our views must pass through this filter. In this way, the Canon is the great purifier of knowledge, helping us to separate that which is clear and evident from that which is not yet clear or evident.

Of this fourth sentence, we should also note that the second of the four Doxai that deal with the canon (PD 23), which follows this one, also mentions that we need something to refer to when investigating the truth of things. PD 24 then warns us against rejecting the criterion or standard of truth. That is the central theme of the four canonical Doxai: that we MUST have clear and practical standards of truth, with the Doctrines elaborating on what must be included as part of it, and leaving us to carry out meleta in order to fill the gaps–for instance, on how to apply these standards specifically in each instance, or in each field of knowledge.

The Therapeutic Interpretation of Doxa 22

This Doxa names two specific types of evil–taraxes and akrisia. In doing so, it invites us to consider how we may identify them by concrete signs, and diagnose them.

When we consider this, epilogismos and enargeia come into relief not only as standards of a reality-based philosophy, but also as medicines for these named evils. In order to deepen our understanding of this teaching, the ancient Epicurean Guides (like Philodemus) helped their disciples to consider how to study, diagnose, and treat these two types of evil.

  • Taraxes translates as perturbations, sometimes as troubles. Within the therapeutic interpretation, this Doxa brings the medicine of a-taraxia (non-perturbation) if practiced.
  • Akrisia means confusion–as in not knowing how to proceed, or how to act, or even how to think. Within the therapeutic interpretation, this Doxa (together with the other Doxai in the canonics) brings the medicine of clarity and diffuses confusion, helping us to think, speak, and act with clarity.

The Hegemon said that philosophy that does not heal the soul is no better than medicine that does not heal the body. At the Society of Friends of Epicurus, we therefore consider the therapeutic method of interpretation to be one of the correct ways of interpreting them. However, it’s not the only correct interpretation, since we accept a method of multiple interpretations, which allows for a type of multiverse of perspectives that can be correct (Please indulge my Doctor Strange reference–I recently watched it and enjoyed it!).

Final Note

I hope that I’ve brought some new aspect of the Doxai to your attention. If you are a sincere student of Epicurean philosophy, my hope is that you will at least learn, deliberate on, and practice these two canonical concepts in greater depth: enargeia and epilogismos. They will equip you to think clearly and usefully, and protect you from akrisia (confusion) and taraxes (perturbations), as well as from apraxia (impracticality).

Happy Twentieth! On Philosophy as an Antidote to Disinformation

Happy Twentieth! We see the harms of willful ignorance everywhere these days. It’s easier for some philosophically-lazy souls to make truth a filthy thing than to embrace candor. Truths are seen as inconvenient, and honesty is not their main virtue. Truth requires a bit of discipline. Standards must be set, faculties must be used. To believe that our will is more mighty than nature is the thinking of sorcerers and wizards. This is an ancient problem. It’s not new. Against this backdrop, Epicurus taught that we should navigate these waters with the help of the canon of nature: an empirical, pragmatic standard of truth.

The problem of willful ignorance is exacerbated by the opportunism of those who stand to benefit from it. The events in Russia continue to shed light on the societal problems created by propaganda and misinformation. We have seen how public health has been greatly affected by misinformation in recent years. During the pandemic, we naturally wanted to educate people (particularly those we care about) in the hopes of maximizing their survival chances. The medicine for what I will call post-truth syndrome lies in the healing words of philosophy. The ancient Epicurean Guides wrote this into their social contract:

If you fight against all your sensations, you will have no standard to which to refer, and thus no means of judging even those judgments which you pronounce false. – Principal Doctrine 23

The video Aleksandr Dugin: ‘We have our special Russian truth’ caught my attention as I was educating myself about Russian propaganda, and trying to figure out the reasons why Russia continues to fall into extreme levels of authoritarianism. Putin’s Russia today is not too different from the Tsar’s regime from over 100 years ago, which inspired the most notorious revolution of the 20th Century. Yet today, Russia has little to show for all the sacrifices of its previous revolutions. I believe this has to do with the population’s propensity to fall for propaganda, and with the lack of free speech and the lack of a variety of narratives.

Dugin is one of Putin’s “philosophers”, a post-modern post-truth charlatan, and a great case study for identifying pseudo-philosophers. For the purposes of educating ourselves as Epicureans, Dugin is useful for understanding the importance of the canon–the Epicurean name for the pragmatic, empirical standard of truth which helps us to separate that which is clear and evident from that which is not, as instructed in Principal Doctrine 24. To us, this standard includes the faculties of pleasure-aversion, and the five senses.

Dugin is a post-modern extremist who argues that all “truths” are relative, and therefore the lies of Russian propaganda are dignified as “special Russian truths”. If this was a legitimate philosophical claim, it would be the case that water is NOT in fact made up of oxygen and hydrogen molecules (at least not in Russia, because they have “special” truths there). If all relative truths deserved the label “truth”, this would imply that there are no falsehoods, or that there is no possibility of falsehood and error, which is obviously a mistaken conclusion.

Those making this declaration that all truths are relative and, therefore, valid (even if mutually contradictory), have given up on any kind of standard of truth, and so have no filter by which to discern truth from untruth, and no way to protect themselves from error. We are not the first Epicureans to note the problems that come with the systemic denial of truth, when it presents itself as true philosophy. Diogenes of Oenoanda, in the 2nd Century CE, wrote this on his Wall Inscription:

Now Aristotle and those who hold the same Peripatetic views as Aristotle say that nothing is scientifically knowable, because things are continually in flux and, on account of the rapidity of the flux, evade our apprehension. 

We on the other hand acknowledge their flux, but not its being so rapid that the nature of each thing is at no time apprehensible by sense-perception. And indeed, in no way would the upholders of the view under discussion have been able to say and this is just what they do maintain that at one time this is white and this black, while at another time neither this is white nor that black, if they had not had previous knowledge of the nature of both white and black.

Again, elsewhere in his Wall Inscription, Diogenes of Oenoanda says:

The Socratics say that pursuing natural science and busying oneself with investigation of celestial phenomena is superfluous and unprofitable, and they do not even deign to concern themselves with such matters. Others do not explicitly stigmatise natural science as unnecessary, being ashamed to acknowledge this, but use another means of discarding it. For, when they assert that things are inapprehensible, what else are they saying than that there is no need for us to pursue natural science? After all, who will choose to seek what he can never find?

Out method of multiple explanations does allow for a variety of interpretations of the evidence of nature, but it does not allow for infinite varieties of “truth”. To dignify all claims as “truths” (even if relative ones) and to engage in this extremist (ideologically-inspired, propaganda-inspired) form of relativism–with no anchor whatsoever in the study of nature–is no different from saying that there are no truths. The word truth has lost all value and utility. “Truths” in this scheme are, in actuality, the opposite of truth claims. It’s a cynical and radically-skeptical outlook in life. It’s also impractical, except for the power-hungry.

What does this do to science, which is predicated on building knowledge on top of previously established and clear knowledge? If there are no empirical or pragmatic standards to call something a “truth”, can anything at all be established scientifically, as a working theory with concrete pragmatic repercussions? Dugin’s cynicism, if sincere, is impractical. If insincere (which is the most likely case, in my opinion), then it’s cynical and nihilistic at its core, in addition to impractical.

Modern attempts to (sincerely or not) uphold this post-modern epistemology in the service of authoritarian ideology result, as we see, in the idiotic and fanatical defense of propaganda, and we are seeing how profoundly dangerous this is to democracy and to the rule of law. It also empowers evil and corrupt leaders (like Putin) in their inability to discern the limits of nature and other important Truths, so that their megalomania and their harmful demagoguery is never checked.

In contrast, Epicurus wants us to awaken our faculties. When we learn to use the canonical faculties that nature bestowed us with, we become emancipated from the need for propaganda, for priests, for demagogues, for logicians, for peddlers of false truths and pseudo-philosophies, and we learn to reason for ourselves, using our eyes, our ears, our touch, our pleasure faculty, and always diligently inferring about the non-evident based on that which is evident in order to avoid error.

If you’d like to learn more about the Epicurean canon, I would recommend you read the middle portion of Liber Qvartvs (the Fourth Book) of Lucretius’ De rerum natura.

Further Reading:
The Epicurean Canon in La Mettrie

Report from the 2022 Epicurean Philosophy Symposium in Athens

My Epicurean friends

I hope you are well, despite the Ukrainian crisis and related humanitarian misery that Putin’s sociopathy has caused. As we Epicureans know well, it is Putin’s great fear of death that has created all that lust for power, money and cynical display of force against his adversaries. I hope we are not witnessing what our forefathers witnessed 83 years ago when Hitler’s sociopathy was in action.

Anyway, I am sending you the report on the 12th Panhellenic Symposium of Epicurean Philosophy, as promised. You may use it as you wish.

With Epicurean friendship
Christos

Report

12th Panhellenic Symposium of Epicurean Philosophy
19-20 February 2022
Co-organization: Friends of Epicurean Philosophy “Garden of Athens” and “Garden of Thessaloniki” – Municipality of Pallini

Internet Broadcast on YouTube and Facebook

Information: www.epicuros.gr

The philosophical psychotherapy of Epicurus in our time

In today’s Greece of the pandemic of the coronavirus and the ongoing psychological pressure, the 12th Panhellenic Symposium of Epicurean Philosophy was held online. The Panhellenic Symposium on Epicurean Philosophy is the largest annual philosophical conference held in Greece and at the same time the only conference on Epicurean Philosophy held annually in the world.

The Panhellenic Symposium of Epicurean Philosophy has been organized for twelve consecutive years. During the decade 2011-2020, it was attended every year by 300-500 delegates at the Cultural Center of Gerakas, in ancient deme of Gargittos (Gargettus), the place of origin of the philosopher Epicurus’ family. Last year and this year, due to the pandemic, the Panhellenic Symposium was watched online by more than 1000 people via broadcast on Facebook and Youtube.

The Mayor of Pallini Athanasios Zoutsos launched the beginning of the Symposium, which was greeted by friends of Epicurean philosophy from Greece, Cyprus, Italy, USA and Australia. On the first day, professors of the National Kapodistrian University of Athens George Chrousos and Christos Yapijakis (School of Medicine) and Vangelis Protopapadakis (Department of Philosophy) discussed topics related to the Epicurean philosophical medicines for mental health and stress management. Furthermore, some of the most interesting presentations regarding the Epicurean approach to modern era issues included the original study of an ancient papyrus of the Epicurean philosopher Philodemus by the philologist Dr. Eleni Avdoulou, the description of the senses by Epicurus which has a great correspondence with that of modern neurobiology by the phycisist Giannis Alexakis, the similarities of the Aristotelian and the Epicurean approach on friendship by the philologist Dr. Elsa Nikolaidou, the Epicurean way of thinking as a means to tackle problems in the modern rapidly changing world by the informaticist Takis Panagiotopoulos, as well as the proposed Epicurean simple sufficiency coupled with a reduction of the economy by the economist Nikos Graikousis.

On the second day, there was an emphasis on wide spreading of Epicurean philosophy in Roman era, which has much in common with modern multicultural Western societies. Some of the some of the most interesting presented topics included the Epicurean poet Lucretius by the Academician and Professor of Latin Philology of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Theodore Papanghelis, the philosopher Philodemus by the pharmacist Litsa Pitsikalis, the Epicurean writer Lucian from the Thyrathen publicer Giannis Avramidis, as well as Cicero’s works as source of Epicurean philosophy by the civil engineer Leonidas Alexandridis.

Furthermore, the Epicurean methodology of Canon as a tool for solving everyday problems was presented by the legal-private employee Dimitris Liarmakopoulos and the Epicurean approach in recognizing fake news on the internet was discussed by the economist and founding member of ellinikahoaxes.gr George Giotis and the lawyer Antonis Bilisis.

In addition, this year for the first time in the Panhellenic Symposium of Epicurean Philosophy there was an International Section in English with renown friends of Epicurus from Europe (Greece and Italy), USA and Australia. Christos Yapijakis, professor of Genetics at the School of Medicine of the National Kapodistrian University of Athens and founding member of the “Garden of Athens” (Greece) referred to the “Scientific Humanism of Epicurus” as the best way of thinking and acting for humanity in our difficult current times and then led the discussion with the International and Greek delegates. Hiram Crespo, author-blogger and founder of the Society of Friends of Epicurus (Chicago, USA) with the assistance of his collaborators/friends presented “Society of Friends of Epicurus: a Philosophical Community”. Geoff Petersson, lawyer-blogger and founder of the “Garden of Sydney” (Australia) presented “Comments on the Four-Part Cure from Downunder”. Cassius Amicus, lawyer- author-blogger and founder of Newepicurean.com (Atlanta, USA) discussed “An Epicurean Response to Plato’s Attack on Pleasure”. Last but not least, Michele Pinto, journalist-blogger, president of World of Epicurus/Mondo di Epicuro (Senigallia, Italy) in his presentation “Epicurus, philosophy and optimism” suggested that it is advisable to follow Epicurus’ advice and make each day better than the previous one. In the discussion that followed experiences in individual countries were shared as well as the best Epicurean publications in different languages.

The artistic program of the Panhellenic Symposium featured the dramatic reading of the poem “Triumph” by Kostis Palamas by the actor Gerasimos Gennatas. The poem refers to the cultural triumph achieved by the Roman Epicurean Lucretius with his majestic and timeless poem “On the nature of things” and the huge difference it had with the triumphs of his contemporary plundering generals of Rome.

For the twelfth consecutive year, the opportunity was openly given to the public to experience the scientific humanism of Epicurus’ philosophy, which offers a timeless mental shield against the universal psychological, social and cultural gridlocks, facilitating the pursue of a happy life in the simplest and most natural way, with wisdom, friendship and solidarity, even in difficult times.

You can watch the videotaped Symposium at: www.epicuros.gr

Dr. Christos Yapijakis, DMD, MS, PhD

Some Thoughts on the High Holidays

Happy Twentieth and Happy Day of the Hegemon! This month, I published a book review of Uniqueness of Carvaka Philosophy in Indian Traditional Thought, and an essay On the Harm and Benefit of the Gods based on our sources, and also citing the essay Epicure, dieu et image de dieu: une autarcie extatique. My essay An Epicurean Perspective of Holiness was featured on the Spiritual Naturalist Society.

I facilitated last month’s Eikas meeting (the facilitator is chosen by rotation) where I focused on Epicurus’ book On moral development, and the many commentaries that Philodemus gave us on this subject. These insights are best studied through Tsouna’s book The Ethics of Philodemus, which teaches us many things about economics, visualization techniques, maximalism, and about the Epicurean theories about and methods of studying the virtues.

One of the insights I derived from a focused study of Epicurus’ theories on moral development is that the Epicurean Guides used SWEETNESS as an incentive for moral develop in the absence of supernatural claims about punishing gods, karma, reincarnation, or other such claims. Since there are no supernatural punishments, we use the natural faculty of pleasure, and we use sweetness, to encourage ourselves and our friends to engage in correct behavior and to become morally better.

This is by pure coincidence, I’m sure, but I recently noticed that the high holidays of both the Jews and the Epicureans fall on the tenth day of the seventh month in their respective calendars. In Laertius’ Book Ten, Fragment 18, we read:

And from the revenues made over by me to Amynomachus and Timocrates let them to the best of their power in consultation with Hermarchus make separate provision for … the customary celebration of my birthday on the tenth day of Gamelion in each year.

This is from Epicurus’ Final Will, and Gamelion is the seventh month in the Attic calendar. The tenth day of the seventh month (in a different calendar) also marks Yom Kippur, which is the Day of Atonement for Jews. In Leviticus 16:29-31 it says:

This is to be a lasting ordinance for you: On the tenth day of the seventh month you must deny yourselves and not do any work—whether native-born or a foreigner residing among you— because on this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. Then, before the Lord, you will be clean from all your sins. It is a day of sabbath rest, and you must deny yourselves; it is a lasting ordinance.

Although the two High Holidays are of very different natures, they also share similarities other than their place in the calendar. Yom Kippur (“the Sabbath of Sabbaths”) is much more than a day of atonement, although rituals of atonement are prominent. Kippur means atonement, but also cleansing. It’s also a yearly renewal of a Jew’s commitment to his covenant, to his relation with his god, and to his identity. The entire community came together and people reconciled–the tribe or community became whole, healthy and happy again.

In modern times for Epicurus’ birthday, Epicureans in Athens hold their now-traditional annual symposium. Though not quite as intense as Yom Kippur (which was the only time the High Priest ever entered the Holy of Holies and uttered his god’s name, and these things were done quite dramatically), the symposium in Athens is, to date, the biggest gathering of kindred minds in the modern world. The symposia, like the Day of the Hegemon, are gatherings of the Epicurean communities that are marked in the calendar in memory of Epicurus and as a solemn observance of his birthday.

This year, the Greek symposium in Athens will be hosting an international portion where people from all other parts of the world (including the members of SoFE) will give short video presentations in English. The dream is to eventually have English-language international conferences beyond Greece in places like Australia and the U.S.

*

We thank our Friend Beryl, who submitted a poem for Hegemon Day titled “Celebrate A Life”:

Can you accept friendship
At the gate of life
As the soil and green shoot grow together?

As the rains of life pour down
Can you smile
Knowing it’s just the weather?

When in learning, head bowed down,
Can you accept direction
Without a frown?

Like the bowing heads of trees
Accept correction
From the breeze.

Are you able to hold you gently
Compassion at the things you say
Treating others the same way?

In politics as in life
Can you cut through deception
To reality like a sharpened knife

In our work as in the bedroom,
Can you rejoice and be free
As the song bird alighting on a tree?

And when winter calls you home
Can you recall your friends delight
Closing eyes to enter night?

Come celebrate with me
And as the apple falls from the tree
Reside in pleasure and be free.