Happy Holidays and Happy Twentieth! Daily Philosophy recently published Epicurus: a Guide to the Principal Doctrines, which is different from another KD Study Guide recently published by Philosophy Break and our own Kyriai Doxai Study Guide.
In solitude there groweth what any one bringeth into it–also the brute in one’s nature. Thus is solitude inadvisable unto many. – Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra, Fourth Book, 73
Kyria Doxa Deka-Tessera
The positive value of fruitful solitude (which the recent pandemic enforced upon many of us), of individuality, and the accompanying challenge of thinking for ourselves and by ourselves have been on my mind recently, as I have been focusing on the study and praxis of Kyria Doxa Deka-Tessera (PD 14), which says:
Although some measure of safety from other people is based in the power to fight them off and in abundant wealth, the purest security comes from solitude and breaking away from the herd.
τῆς ἀσφαλείας τῆς ἐξ ἀνθρώπων γενομένης μέχρι τινὸς δυνάμει τε ἐξερειστικῇ καὶ εὐπορίᾳ, εἰλικρινεστάτη γίνεται ἡ ἐκ τῆς ἡσυχίας καὶ ἐκχωρήσεως τῶν πολλῶν ἀσφάλεια.
The word translated as solitude (sometimes as quietude) is ἡσυχίας (hesuchias), which is the same word used today for the tradition of the Greek Orthodox Christian monks. However, Epicurus’ earlier form of hesuchía belongs to the laughing philosophers. Nietzsche’s Zarathustra, too, follows a tradition of laughing hermits. The word translated as “breaking away from the herd” is ἐκχωρήσεως (exchoriseos or exiting the chorus, literally).
I can think of at least two ways of practicing this Doxa, based on these words. If we can’t parrot whatever everyone else is saying blindly, then one option is to find our own voice. It will never be 100 % unique to us (because all communication originated in socializing processes), but insofar as it’s authentic, I think it fulfills the exchoriseos part.
If we can’t parrot what everyone else is saying, we can also stay silent. Therefore, a second way to practice this is via what the Taoist sages would call silent mastery. Silence does not have to be passive: it can be an act of power and health, just as speech is. It can be vitality that does not have to overflow to others, or the contented knowing that does not require external consent. In many wisdom traditions (Taoism, Yoruba, the Havamal) elders have observed that those who run their mouths tend to be ignorant, while the wise tend to choose their words carefully and are sparse with words. Philodemus addresses in Rhetorica some of the ways in which silence can be a philosophical practice.
Someone could argue that silence, solitude, and quietude can happen in the midst of society. That is possible. I think that this Doxa instills the value and the dignity of independent thinking, of privacy of thoughts (which I think must accompany freedom of thought, and without which freedom of thought would be meaningless), and of autarchy.
A more fruitful meleta on this Doxa might arise if we go down the rabbit hole of asking the following thought-provoking conversation-starter: “How do I set up the criteria to decide the means, the methods, and the techniques by which I will think for myself, and by myself?” (Nietzsche does much “philosophizing with his hammer” on this). In this way, the Doxa acquires the power to inform the choices and rejections by which we manage our inner life, and its insights become stronger. We may choose to think logically, or empirically, or practically … or playfully. Any of these ways of thinking for ourselves and by ourselves might pass hedonic calculus and be an outlet for the expression of our personal sovereignty–because this Doxa is, ultimately, an initiation into a PRACTICE of self-rule, of autarchy.
Of course, thinking for and by ourselves does not mean we know it all: we sometimes find it prudent to yield to the opinion of experts in certain fields. So we must also prudently discern even the limits of our self-reliance.
Free FOR What?
In Thus Spake Zarathustra, Nietzsche frequently refers to the lonesome ones, the seceding ones, and makes other references that remind me of Kyria Doxa Deka-Tessera / Epicurus’ Principal Doctrine 14.
TSZ is an encyclopedic volume, so I will focus only on chapter 17 of the work, which is titled “The Way of the Creating One” (the full work is here). The title and content of the chapter makes me think that to be free, the philosopher must be an artist. He must have creative resources, and if he does not cultivate creativity, he will not be practicing freedom but acting out patterns and programs born in the heads of others. And he will never be able to give a full and honest account of those others’ psychological profiles, histories, agendas, etc. Here, Nietzsche is philosophizing with his hammer!
Free, dost thou call thyself? Thy ruling thought would I hear of, and not that thou hast escaped from a yoke.
Art thou one ENTITLED to escape from a yoke? Many a one hath cast away his final worth when he hath cast away his servitude.
Free from what? What doth that matter to Zarathustra! Clearly, however, shall thine eye show unto me: free FOR WHAT?
Canst thou give unto thyself thy bad and thy good, and set up thy will as a law over thee? Canst thou be judge for thyself, and avenger of thy law?
Here, Nietzsche is teaching an active nihilism, and rejecting a passive one. I love this passage because setting up their will as a law (social contract) over themselves is exactly what Epicurus and his companions did when they authored, edited, and established the Principal Doctrines as authoritative for their circle of friends. In this way, the Kathegemones are a case study for this. Nietzsche later in this chapter goes on to warn the lonesome ones who have chosen to “exit the chorus” and to stop parroting the “manufacture of consent” pushed by the herd. He says:
And be on thy guard against the good and just! They would fain crucify those who devise their own virtue–they hate the lonesome ones.
Be on thy guard, also, against holy simplicity! All is unholy to it that is not simple; fain, likewise, would it play with the fire–of the fagot and stake.
I will not delve into the many other instances where Nietzsche speaks to the lonesome ones. I invite you, my readers, to get on his magic carpet by reading his works on your own, if you are inclined to visit the mountains of Zarathustra to gather this wisdom. It’s enough for my readers to accept the challenges of PD 14 and of TSZ 17, and practice with these insights for long enough and with a sustained enough effort to begin to see the inner revolution these words mean to incite in our souls.
If you seek yet another role model for learning to think and speak for yourself, for originality and creativity, consider Lucretius (this is from De rerum natura, Liber Qvartvs):
None before have walked where I walk.
I love to find new founts and drink;
I love to gether fresh new flowers
and seek the laureate’s crown whence Muses
never ere now have veiled the brow of any man …
Conclusion
Many moons ago, I had the delight of reading AC Grayling’s Good Book: a Humanist Bible, and wrote various book reviews and memes (like the Sheeple Meme) based on it. Having grown up Catholic, I have always enjoyed the idea of non-theistic literature that fulfills the role of scripture–not in the sense of being infallible, or inspired and aesthetically-pleasing literature, but in the sense of being a matrix of traditions, and a compilation of philosophical wisdom. Philodemus (when discussing the Pragmateia) added that true philosophical literature must help us to “walk forward in sweetness”. De rerum natura, and the Kyriai Doxai, have come to fill that role. But they’re not the only philosophical writings that I derive pleasure from.
Thus Spake Zarathustra reads like a Bible or other scripture, has almost the same number of chapters (80) as another non-theistic scripture, the Tao Te Ching (81 chapters), but its ardor, zeal, and passion make it feel more like a life-affirming atheistic Bible that vehemently rejects otherworldly beliefs. Like the Gospel or the Lotus Sutra, it has parables that have the power to shake the foundations of what we think we believe.
While TSZ is not perfect, and neither is Nietzsche, it can sometimes provide thought-provoking conversation-starters for our meleta, and its ideas can have strong synergy with some of the ideas in Lucretius and in the Doxai.
Further Reading:
SoFE’s Kyriai Doxai Study Guide
Friedrich Nietzsche – Thus Spake Zarathustra: A Book for All and None (Entire Book Online)
Why Passivity Breeds Mediocrity and Mental Illness (or, “Free For What?”)
